A fire hydrant which appeared in the background of a picture of me published in the local weekly newspaper, which is a published, print source and arguably a reliable source. Before we put too much energy into hairsplitting as to whether this fire hydrant is verifiable and therefore encyclopedic, click the "random page" article and look at the article we already _have_. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fath_Jang_Mir_Osman_Ali_Khan_Asif_Jah_VII --a biography with NO references at all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renishaw_Hall --OK assuming we accept the official website and a "gardenvisit" website as reliable sources, which I do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardeşen --A substub with NO references at all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Skarsgård --OK assuming we accept imdb as a reliable source, which I do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_storm --a long, well-written article about a scientific subject that has _no_ explicit sources for any items in it. Could subtle vandalism be detected in this article by anybody but the contributors of the information? There are nine books under "suggested reading" and four "see also" web references which probably could source most of the information, but there's no way to locate which is the source, for, say, the biology section, which is probably somewhat controversial. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MapleStory --a long article about an MMORGP with no explicit references for any particular facts in it, but a slew of external links to official websites and fansites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essequibo_Islands-West_Demerara --A geography article with NO references at all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_A._Evans --A biography article with a single book listed as reference, but apparently one would need to skim through the whole book to find the sources for any of the facts in the article. ...and on and on it goes. Probably less than 5% of Wikipedia's content actually meets [[WP:V]], [[WP:CITE]], and [[WP:RS]]. P robably much less than half of Wikipedia's content meets it even by the most charitable interpretation, in which one a) assumes that external links to websites run by organizations that are not disinterested in their subject matter are reliable sources (I'm thinking of things like websites about historic-house museums and the like, which are probably mostly sorta-kinda-OK but probably are inclined to present the "authorized-biography" view of things), and b) assumes that most of the facts in the article could be found in the externally linked websites. Spot-checking, by the way, shows that that is often NOT the case. Articles of that kind often start out as, well, paraphrases of external website content, then gradually acquire an accumulation of interesting things that, I believe, people think they know about the topic and add to it, without bothering to add any supporting references.