Should Wiktionary have entries for inflected forms?

Wiktionaries, multi-lingual dictionaries, usually have entries for inflected forms. Should they?

Arguments for

 * They are more convenient than relying on the search function, expressly documenting the form on a dedicated page.
 * When the inflected form has the same spelling as a lemma in a different language, the dictionary page would exist, but without any indication that the reader could be interested in a different page, the lemma page of the language for which the found page is for an inflected form of that lemma.
 * An inflected form entry enables collection of quotations of use specifically for that form. That is of interest for languages and forms for which one suspects the form sees little or no use. For instance, the Czech Wiktionary entry Tóry demonstrates the use of plural.
 * This use case could be covered in the Citations: namespace for the lemma, in the English Wiktionary.
 * It could, but then, the Citations: page would need to be structured by inflected forms. Whether this would work so well is unclear.
 * Not only the English Wiktionary but also many other Wiktionaries have pages for inflected forms. The editors supporting the practice must have some key benefits in mind. That is not conclusive, but suggestive.
 * Wiktionaries are likely to be overstaffed with lexicographically and philosophically/semantically unqualified resources who enjoy doing trivial mechanical work and bot work over substantive lexicographical work. That is a possible explanation for popularity of this kind of content creation.That is not conclusive, but suggestive.
 * There are separate entries for, in English, -ness, -ly and -or entries. That is somewhat similar case, although quantitatively different.
 * The -ness, -ly and -or entries are needed for translations, whereas the inflected form of entries in the English Wiktionary do not have translations (but those in the German Wiktionary do). Thus, e.g. Merriam-Websters monolingual English dictionary has slightly different design considerations for being monolingual.

Arguments against

 * These entries present a huge volume of low-value content, driving the attention and effort away from what matters most. Over a decade after its start, even the large English Wiktionary has unsatisfactory coverage of lemmas of many major languages. Once a kind of content is impossible or strongly discouraged, it automatically channels resources to what is much more important.
 * The channeling argument is rather speculative. Some editors would perhaps not be attracted to the site at all.
 * That seems unlikely. There is so much to do, e.g. finding good quotations or even manually adding great further reading/external links (which does not require much talent but is genuinely valuable).
 * No online dictionary shows separate entries for inflected forms. Merriam-Webster even sublemmatizes -ness, -ly and -or forms, not bothering to define them. That is not conclusive, but suggestive.
 * These low-value pages considerably increase the dump size even when the quasi-definition lines are templated. In some Wiktionaries, they are not even templated and repeat in words what is already in the inflection table in the lemma.
 * As a weak argument against, inflected form entries complicate lemma counting, although the problem is not insoluble and is well solved in the English Wiktionary, but not in the Czech Wiktionary.
 * As a weak argument against, inflected form entries complicate lemma counting in a user's entry contribution count and list, complicating getting an idea of the genuinely valuable contribution. Straightforward solution is unknown.
 * As a weak argument against, inflected form entries introduce the debate point of to what extent do the inflected forms need to be attested in use.