Webster is a verifiable source  The criticism is as you say relevant to the subjects notability and can be rsourced to reliable secondary sources  So by your own admission Estersons edit conforms to our policies  But you know what  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit  If you think Esterson added something that is not part of Websters critique delete it  But do not fault him for adding Websters critique  When you chose not to make an edit that would improve content and instead attack an editor you are failing to assume good faith and it makes it look like you care more about stirring up conflict with editors than improving articles  In this case improving articles means adding notable views especially critical ones  I do not see how you can oppose this  By the way I never mentioned my being an administrator  I am an editor and all editors ought to know and uphold wikipedia policy including you