It isn't so much about having my stuff edited as it is that there seems to be a mindset among en.wp editors that stuff needs to be deleted unless they personally think it is important. We have a virtually infinite space in which to write and add to the body of knowledge, so why act as though it needs to be made smaller by applying some arbitrary criterion?
I do not have that much free time to be arguing over trivialities - I'm trying to record history as it has happened from my perspective. If you don't like my objectivity then go do your own research and do some editing - don't go for a 1984 style darconian rewrite/deletion.
Right now I'm spending all my free time wrestling with the article on "light bulb sockets", which I did not originate. It is difficult to talk about the sockets without bringing in all sorts of technical reasons why they are the way they are. I didn't throw out the originator's material
- I've expanded it based on my experiences in the theatrical lighting
industry. I'm sure someone will eventually want to edit the material and take the time to organize it a bit more. That is ok - it is what collaboration is all about.
Our criteria are not arbitrary: notability is established by information published in generally reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Notability
"history as it has happened from my perspective" sounds like original research.
With respect to light bulb sockets one imagines there is a specialized literature, and many patents...
Fred