Why is inclusionism so bad? So what if we had a wikipedia article for every office building in Chicago or every Pokemon out there?
We probably should not have a Wikipedia article for every hackerspace in the world.
We may want more articles about hackerspaces on Wikipedia.
If we do, it does not help that almost everybody who has ever gone so far as to give their planned hackerspace a name has probably also added a (crappy) page to Wikipedia about their planned project.
You act as if every hacker space is only in the planning stages. I'm a member of a functional, and running hackerspace that's doing just fine and in action today.
If you create a new article about a random office building in Chicago, and you cite all the information in the article to architecture books, journal articles, newspaper articles, etc., and the result is more than one sentence, nobody will delete it, so that basically is the current policy.
But if you personally interview architects, dig through archives of blueprints, etc., to construct a new piece of historical research on a building that the existing historical literature doesn't document, Wikipedia isn't quite the right place to publish that. Either there should be a separate wiki dedicated to researching/documenting the history of Chicago, or you could write up your results, present them at a history conference, and then cite that paper once it's published.