Like most articles on WP, wrong or misleading (Score 1)

I agree that we are fighting a battle for the soul of Wikipedia, but [[WP:N]] is not it. ([[WP:V]], specifically what counts as a valid [[WP:RS|reliable source]], and the role of the Wikimedia Foundation board members and WP's de facto God-King Jimbo Wales, are where the battle rages, in my opinion.)

The Economist article is wrong on at least the following points.

• [[Solidarity]] is a decent article. It could be much better, but anyone hoping to get an introduction to the movement can get the big picture from WP article and follow the links therefrom.
• The number of Pokemon character articles is far from 500. Read [[WP:POKEMON]] for the current thinking on the "Pokemon test" of notability. Also note the inapplicable rationale that because some nn fanwankery has historically existed in WP that any new fancrud is excusable.
• [[WP:NOTPAPER]], far from being a rallying cry of the inclusionists, is the first item of one of WP's core principles. I doubt anyone seriously argues that WP's content policies should be just like other paper encyclopedias. Let me quote an important and usually misunderstood sentence from it: [T]here is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done.
• The biggest fault with the article is that it just does not understand WP's deletion process. With few exceptions, things like the manuals of style ([[WP:MOSMAC]] or [[WP:PEACOCK]] from the article) cannot be used as rationales to delete. In fact, even straight citations of [[WP:N]] are considered poor !votes on [[WP:AfD]]. Instead, the vast majority of deletions happen because of the failure to meet specific policies and guidelines such as [[WP:BIO]], [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOT]]. These policies and guidelines state WP's (at least WP circa 2008's) standards. One can (and many do) argue about the quality of these standards, but it is lunacy to suggest that because some inclusion standards are faulty that we should do away with all inclusion standards. In any case, most of these standards are gradually getting more and more liberal --- and that is a good thing!
• WP's criteria for speedy deletion are specific. They don't include such criteria as "delete all new (sub)stubs", as the Economist claims. As somone who regularly adds short stubs on various things to WP, my articles almost never get speedied. The article simply has to assert a plausible notability and provide a verifiable source or two. These are not high standards; almost any halfway decent reference will require at least these.
• [[WP:MW]] does not list primarily people who have left because of the content inclusion policies. The overwhelming majority have left because of interpersonal conflicts or simple lack of continuing interest.

In any event, the Inclusionist/Deletionist divide is really ancient history. Almost no one is purely one or the other these days, except the occasional troll who gets off on nominating dozens of articles on AfD.