I wrote at the Economist in 2013 about Wikipedia's declining stock of editors. It has arcane procedures, which it claims are objective and clear, but are neither. New editors wind up typically not sticking around, because the system and the entrenched priesthood are unwelcoming, despite a multi-year effort to change that. As a result, a small number of highly committed long-term people runs most of the place, and that number is dwindling even as the project continues to grow.
Do I care that my entry was deleted? Not really. I don't consider Wikipedia authoritative. I use it as a shortcut to find sources and general background, especially for science topics, which often have lots of well-researched details.
My entry was deleted ostensibly because there weren't enough references to stuff I've done that weren't things on my site or that I've written about stuff I've done. But Wikipedia prohibits one from editing one's own entry, so I can't improve it. You're ostensibly not supposed to recruit people you know. So you have to be "important" enough that unrelated third parties find you interesting enough to research and footnote your accomplishments.