A friend of mine asked me to write an article about his company, which I did, taking a well-established article about another company in the same industry as a template. It's a 10-minute job.
The article gets taken down due to "lack of notability". When I questioned how come a company that has operations on 2 continents, employs several hundred people, and offers more products than its next 4 competitors combined, is somehow "not notable", I got back a vague reply along the lines of "well, unless it's mentioned in a reputable source, like the New York Times or Wall Street Journal..." Yeah, OK, a totally obscure technology like supersonic emulsifiers is REALLY going to make front-page news in NYT.
So, I do some research, find several industry awards the company has won, and re-post the article with references to those awards, AND an explanation on the talk page that "see, it IS notable, it's been getting awards".
It gets taken down for "spamming suspicious links".
So, if there are no links, it's not notable. If there are links, it's spamming. At this point, I'm pissed and it becomes a personal challenge.
I post a photo of a unique item - it gets taken down because "it MIGHT exist in the public domain". No, it might not. It does not. Because this company is the ONLY one that makes it. I explain this to the editors. Doesn't matter - as long as there's some hypothetical made-up possibility of a public-domain alternative, you can't post original images. Even if the copyright holder chooses the "I give Wikipedia permission to use this image" option. (which raises the question, why the hell is that option there in the first place?).
And so on, and so on. Long story short, after a dozen-plus iterations of this BS I gave up on it.
As long as there are self-aggrandazing jagoffs taking down article for absolutely random reasons, and refusing to consider any explanations, sources, links, supporting evidence, or plain simple COMMON SENSE, there will be more and more potential authors who are disenchanted with Wikipedia.