Wikipedia:Articles with a single source
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
According to Wikipedia notablity guidelines, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.
Given this information, a subject with a single source does not merit a standalone article.
There are other inherent problems with an article containing a single source.
- Copyright violations: If an article has just one source, it may be an exact copy of the source provided, therefore constituting a copyright violation.
- Original research: Any more information provided in an article beyond the lone source is automaticaly original research. It is often the writer's own interpretation of the subject or the creator's own reason there should be an article on the subject.
- Dictionary definitions:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Therefore, an article under no circumstances can be supported only by a dictionary entry that defines the meaning of the title. If this is the case, then any other information is, by definition, original research.
Subject's own site
One of the least permissible articles are those in which the lone external link or source is the subject's own site. Not only does this have the problem with the single source issue, but is also a conflict of interest.