From time to time the wikipedia admins remove articles from their database, often without any rational reason, but only because of their twisted policies.
The problem is that many if not most of wikipedia's admins live in the illusion that wikipedia should be a "serious" encyclopedia, rivaling book encyclopedias such as Encyclopedia Britannica or such, and thus they have formed these sets of policies which they often impose in a rather irrational way.
Now, don't get me wrong. When I say that wikipedia is not a "serious encyclopedia" I'm not using this as a negative expression in any way. In fact, in my opinion it's good that wikipedia is not a "serious encyclopedia". Thanks to that you can often find information and facts from wikipedia which you would never find eg. in Encyclopedia Britannica. For example, let's assume that you want to know what "l33t" means, or let's assume you want to know what is the name of the final boss in Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. This is the kind of information which you won't find in Encyclopedia Britannica (because it's a "serious" encyclopedia) but which you can find in wikipedia if you need to. This is why wikipedia is sometimes more useful than any "serious" encyclopedia.
Or let's say you want to know what "Toki Pona" is. You would more probably find this information in wikipedia rather than in Encyclopedia Britannica... if wikipedia admins had not removed this article. The removal of such article is beyond comprehension. Who does it hurt to have such an article? It doesn't offend anyone and it just states a fact. What's wrong in keeping it? Who benefits from this removal? Nobody.
In my opinion wikipedia should be a database of facts, not an encyclopedia. The difference is that in the former any fact is ok. There's no reason to delete any facts just because they are "too unencyclopedic" or because they are "not notable enough". A fact is a fact, no matter how notable, and any fact may be useful for someone.