WikipediaLots of talk about donating money, which is great, but donating time is equally as impactful — we always need more editors, and it's these volunteers who create and curate our content! 
--sf
Florian Schmidt@wikipedia
Maybe there should be a "Notability Clearance Help Desk", so people who really want to contribute can check up-front if their topic is worth spending effort on.
Nothing is more frustrating than doing your research, citing reliable sources, writing your own text, edit it to look nice, add photos on this very subject (that are accepted on Commons!) - only to find all your stuff deleted by a grumpy admin the next day, telling you it's violating WP:N.
To a newcomer nonetheless!
Maybe there should be a "Notability Clearance Help Desk", so people who really want to contribute can check up-front if their topic is worth spending effort on.
Nothing is more frustrating than doing your research, citing reliable sources, writing your own text, edit it to look nice, add photos on this very subject (that are accepted on Commons!) - only to find all your stuff deleted by a grumpy admin the next day, telling you it's violating WP:N.
To a newcomer nonetheless!
bazbt3 🦣@schmidt_fu Painful isn't it. Did you consider first adding your text and images to a page that already exists, that your deleted page has relevance to? If that is 'allowed', it may be something worth building on - in the future.
*However* the problem with Wikipedia is that we can't just create a new page based on information on an existing Wikipedia page – as you've found it has to have notable external references.
@bazbt3
I had my share of trying to contribute my knowledge to WP, my problem isn't even that there is a process and that you can follow it eventually. My problem is, that it isn't *honest*, it doesn't work as advertised. And this puts off many newcomers.
@wikipedia
I had my share of trying to contribute my knowledge to WP, my problem isn't even that there is a process and that you can follow it eventually. My problem is, that it isn't *honest*, it doesn't work as advertised. And this puts off many newcomers.
@wikipedia
@bazbt3
"Wikipedia verlangt nicht, dass dein erster Artikel gleich alle wünschenswerten Anforderungen ab der ersten Version erfüllt. [..] Das Wiki-Prinzip beruht darauf, dass einer anfängt und viele mitarbeiten und verbessern, deshalb sei mutig und lege neue Artikel an."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilfe:Neuen_Artikel_anlegen
@wikipedia
"Wikipedia verlangt nicht, dass dein erster Artikel gleich alle wünschenswerten Anforderungen ab der ersten Version erfüllt. [..] Das Wiki-Prinzip beruht darauf, dass einer anfängt und viele mitarbeiten und verbessern, deshalb sei mutig und lege neue Artikel an."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilfe:Neuen_Artikel_anlegen
@wikipedia
@schmidt_fu Absolutely right. It seems to me that some frequent users believe the position they themselves have cultivated gives them the right to remove content - they are confusing objectivity and subjectivity.
The measure of whether something is notable (or is not) works both ways. I remember when the company that bought the app.net domain believed their more recent claim to relevance was greater than for the years the app incubator/social network existed.
People eh!