Customerssuck.com ON Wikipedia

[Crazeyal]

I don't trust Wikipedia.

It's a pretty bad idea.

Allowing random idiots to edit an encyclopedia is just a BAD IDEA...

But it's there.

And I think customers suck deserves to be entered.

I posted a bare bones article at http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Customerssuck.com

I KNOW that there are people here who can do better than me at this. That is why this article sucks so much. I put up the BARE BONES.

Let's put up some info folks!

[Spiffy McMoron]

The previous owner's webhandle was Mr.Slugger. Let's give some credit where credit is due!

[Crazeyal]

Edit the article.

[Spiffy McMoron]

Wikipage updated!

[Greenday]

What's the deal with this Speedy Deletion non-sense?

[Rahmota]

Unfortunately Wikipedia has some rather "high standards" for what sort of article can and cannot be placed upon their pages.

While I do kill some time surfing through their pages I have given up eiting anythign on there. Also I know my kids school will not allow wikipedia to be used as an actual reference for any homework.

I am betting that the bolded reasons below are what some moderator who might not like the concept or something is going to use as an excuse.

Articles
No meaningful content or history (e.g. random characters or words). See patent nonsense. Test pages (e.g., "Can I really create a page here?").
Pure vandalism (see also dealing with vandalism).
Very short articles with no context (e.g., "He was a funny man that created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great.") Temporarily deleting a page in order to merge page histories after a cut and paste move.
Advertising or spam.
Self-requests by the author with no third-party edit history.
Obvious hoaxes, spoofs, April Fools-type pranks or other works of fiction that damage the credibility of Wikinews. In some cases, it may be desirable to preserve the content by moving it to a user subpage of the author.
Content reposted without changes that was deleted according to established deletion policy.
This does not apply to content that was undeleted according to undeletion policy.
Foreign language articles which do not appear to be news (for news items, some attempt should be made to move them to the appropriate language edition of Wikinews, if it exists).
An obvious copyright violation that is a cut-and-paste exact or near-exact duplicate of content from a copyrighted source. Speedy delete does not apply for public-domain sources, when public domain reprint permission is granted from the original source and specified in the article talk page, or to articles with a third-party edit history

[Rahmota]

DUHR I cannot believe I missed something after looking at the page and your URL. You created that page on wikiNEWS which is for news events, current events stuff like that. Not for websites.

wikiPEDIA is for the articles.....I hate insomnia. too awake to stop thinking and too tired to pay attention or know what you're thinking......

ARRRG. It still doesnt change what I said previously but it does explain why they wanted it deleted.

Also might want to increase the notability of the site's description and article before posting it to wikipedia otherwise they will probably delete it for non-notability or call it a fluff piece for self promotion.

[CancelMyService]

I don't trust Wikipedia.

It's a pretty bad idea.

Allowing random idiots to edit an encyclopedia is just a BAD IDEA...
!

Not to threadjack, but the very concept of Wikipedia would seem to guard it against idiots. Anything that gets edited incorrectly usually gets corrected/locked from vandalism pretty quickly.

I wouldn't use it as a source on a doctorate thesis or anything, but it's hardly the cesspool of misinformation some people think it is.

[Seshat]

Oddly, my RL identity was a page on wikipedia for a while. I got pruned out as 'not notable enough'. But I had my fifteen minutes of fame! (or at least Wikipedia-fame.)

[Crazeyal]

God.. I knew it was a mistake.

[Lace Neil Singer]

You could always try Encyclopedia Dramatica instead. XD

[Crazeyal]

Meh.. I'm fairly certain I put it in the wrong place, but to get it deleted that fast just goes to show how broken the system is.

[Becks]

When I clicked on the link, there was nothing there. :sob:

[Broomjockey]

Wouldn't it having been deleted that quickly shows the system isn't broken? You know, since it was in the wrong place and all?

[Greenday]

Wouldn't it having been deleted that quickly shows the system isn't broken? You know, since it was in the wrong place and all?

Broom has a point there. Can't fault that logic.