I've just started on wikipedia and created multiple articles. My latest had a variety of sources including television and newspapers along with others. The page had been deleted before and I wanted to bring it back. So I sourced everything and made sure it was good. It was immediately ripped for being "trivial" for sticking only to factual and verifiable information. Then the newspaper sources were discredited because "it was only a blurb". I asked multiple times on why the television sources weren't good, but 5 different people managed to ignore that part and all of them were involved in the last discussion of the deletion of the webpage. And one of the requirements that was met for the article was declined due to a newly created technicality that is nowhere to be found on the site.
The site is done. You are not going to be able to put any new articles of interest on the site and the site is going to look like it does now - virtually unchanged since the mid-2000's. Nothing except the same stuff as always will always be on there and the site is going to end up like a lot of sites have ended up this year - not neutral, but just for one side.
The admins have way too much power. They all know each other and whoever has the most power wins. Majority decisions do not win. They can ban you, they can ban you from your own talk page, they can accuse you of sockpuppetry to ban you, they can set your page up for speedy deletion, they can mark it for deletion and they can just ban you and then get the page deleted due to getting you banned.
After what I experienced, I believe you could make the justification that any article on the website is not notable and available to be deleted.
A new wikipedia needs to be created because this site is too deep in crap to be pulled out.