Wikipedia <i>is</i> the place for all factual, verifiable, minimally notable information. When stuff gets rejected from WP, it&#x27;s almost always because it fails one of those three simple tests.<p>For instance: someone downthread complained that WP was missing coverage of local bands and an interesting BBC documentary. The BBC documentary <i>should</i> be in Wikipedia, and if it isn&#x27;t, it&#x27;s probably because whoever wrote the stub article for it wrote it poorly; someone else should re-add it. But the local bands most likely fail both notability and verifiability: if nobody has written about them, (a) chances are they aren&#x27;t notable, and (b) whatever is notable about them can&#x27;t be tied to a specific reliable source, which would make a Wikipedia article about the band original research.<p>A really common place you run into trouble with Wikipedia is when your proposed article <i>breaks new facts</i> about its subject. That&#x27;s not supposed to happen. Wikipedia is a tertiary source; if it makes a claim, that claim needs to be sourced from something else. &quot;Original research&quot; is a confusing term for this, but it makes a lot of sense once you grok it. From the perspective of an encyclopedia, there isn&#x27;t much difference between someone&#x27;s random harebrained theory about cold fusion and a discussion of the lineup of some New York hardcore band nobody&#x27;s ever heard of outside of NYC.