The problem [is] that Wikipedia doesn't want the crap in the first place.
There is no "Wikipedia wants", it's not a person---that's the whole problem, people disagree about the direction wikipedia should go in.
and if the foundation is unsound, then the roof cannot be.
I cannot find any meaning to this which is relevant to what we're talking about. True, if the servers crash all day, even the best-written article is only going to be moderately useful. But bad articles don't somehow infect good articles. They don't even draw editing effort away (under my system)---the editing effort they attract couldn't be put elsewhere.
[Will be edited, most edits reduce quality, need editorial oversight]
So? What's the wrong in letting the few volunteers who want to write about some topic maintain those articles for themselves, at whatever level of quality they will bear?
lack of volunteer hours to maintain the article at the intended level of quality.
Intended by whom? And why do they get to dictate terms to others?
What my solution aimed at was giving the deletionists what they want (stars burning twice as bright but half as many), to the extent they can make people voluntarily contribute to that end, while at the same time giving the inclusionists what they want (the blooming of a thousand flowers) without detracting from the quality of the narrower core of high-quality articles the deletionists want.
I haven't seen you argue that this is unobtainable, nor why this isn't a decent compromise betweent the wishes of the people involved. I've seen you take the side of the deletionists (as I understand them), without really saying why, just asserting that it's "what wikipedia wants". Am I misunderstanding the deletionists here? If not, care to explain why the compromise is bad?