* Disruption to make a point, which would be used to shoot down Plan A - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POINT
* Strict invocation of the rules - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LAWYER
* 'Gaming the system' in general. See how they forbid pointing out contradictions in the application of the rules! - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system
I can see how the spirit of them was to lubricate discussion and decision making, but when you have such a complex etiquette which can be used to silence newcomers upon breach, you have just a recipe for abuse.
Just because you know so goddamn much about policies and the like, doesn't mean anybody else cares.
Since you mostly seem to be interested in seeing yourself further existing bureaucracy and not IAR to create the best a resource for wikipeida users, I will engage you in a futile attempt to point out the reason that people are not doing what you ask.
Wikipedia's policies would consider it self-published. It does not matter that you would be writing about languages that you are not affiliated with. Again, you are not going to change Wikipedia's policies by pointing out that Wikipedia itself is self-published in their eyes.
I think you are vastly overestimating the number of people that have even heard, much less care about these esoteric languages.
I do not know why you ascribe these emotions to me, but they are not in the least accurate. I do not think my personal opinion on this set of articles is at all significant. I do not care about them, either way.
Frankly, what disturbs me is how you have very strong opinions about how Wikipedia does or should work with an incredibly superficial actual understanding. For example, why do you argue over how Wikipedia sees Lulu? Have you even read Wikipedia's policy on Reliable Sources or Verifiability? It is not as if Lulu itself or other things like it are new. It has been debated a number of times and at length. You have no knowledge of the issue and provide no insight.