"not a root"
Re *ḱeres-. Do you mean that stem didn't exist (says who?) Or do you mean it's morphologically composite? If the latter, where should this information go?
True roots only have one vowel in them. So with its two e's, this isn't a root. The descendants also seem somewhat dubious, there's no s at all in the stem of the Lithuanian or Sanskrit terms, and the second e is missing in the Russian. All in all, there's just too much wrong to warrant keeping it.
I agree on all points that this form is low-quality as an IE reconstruction. What surprises me is the practice that an individual's editorial judgment is good enough to reject a reconstruction that appears in a reputable source.
Also, if the policy were that being securely traced to a root (with just one phonemic vowel) was necessary for a reconstruction to deserve an entry, I'd have to call that too dogmatic. That would make us get rid of the entry for *kʷetwóres!
(For example, I could spend months getting rid of all the dubious stuff in Karulis' etymological dictionary that we currently quote in Latvian entries. So far I've mostly held back...)
It's ultimately a good policy, since if something is changed incorrectly, it will eventually get changed back to something correct. One day those Latvian entries will be correct. That's the aim of wiktionary, the way I see it. Keep beating things with a hammer until they are good.