Depends. Just having an "outside source" itself is often not good enough. In this particular case, the main argument against the topic was that there were not enough "reliable sources". In fact, most people argued that the only reliable source on there was the Forbes article. That alone is often considered grounds for deletion. While it is nice to have articles covering phenomena such as this, if they aren't what those people consider "reliably" sourced, than it isn't viewed as belonging on wikipedia.Mr. Oragahn wrote:I got things mixed up. So they don't want original research. So what happens if one puts a wiki up, or a website, and then has it quoted on wiki?
Edit: I forgot to mention, on wikipedia, webmasters adding their own links to pages is frowned upon.