I find the 'banning' (taken out of sale) or rewriting old documents a huge problem. That's bleaching the past imho. We might still know why it was rewritten, but in a generation or two people won't and that might be bad. Anywhere from repeating the past to denying the past.
Leaving old documents as they were when published is also a great learning tool about the past and current issues.
As an example, I read a lot and sometimes I read old stuff. Like the Destroyer series of books, the first one was written in 1963 (but published in 1971), written by two Americans. The series (150+ books) is certainly not politically correct, but it gave a good insight into American views in those decades (and how that translates to an action/pulp book series) and you see the writing change as time goes on. There are moments where you go "That's iffy at best!" or "Oof!", but it did connect a LOT of dots for me on American society were it came from where it is now and how we got here. I grew up on a LOT of (older) American TV series and Movies, but those are often like a lot of Movies and TV shows now, not always exactly representative.
Especially concerning the old D&D pdfs they are taking up virtually no space, so we're not wasting any paper there. Before this whole discussion I expect that there were maybe a few sales per month, but due to these two threads, sales might have spiked significantly!
Forcing another document to be downloaded with the original, I also find problematic. What I would find interesting is an analysis of each setting by product. My problem is how is it written... When I look at the linked document of Travis Henry, when I start reading, I quickly skip over the quotes, then have trouble reading through the first 'list'. I quickly get disinterested and scroll through the document and see/skim quite a bit of "Oof!" items in there, that might sway those that are not familiar with GAZ10 (like myself) that it's an offensive document. The document starts out in a way that might be fine for those that already have the same views as the author, but is a very annoying read for those that do not. Improve that and remove the CV from the end of the document.