At WP's current size, the chances of finding
a random vanity article
is
minuscule - in fact, the critiques of WP's credibility by outside
people
have been based on points of factual detail in existing articles on
familiar subjects, not on whether an "unencyclopedic" article exists
or
not (which shouldn't be too surprising, since no one will go looking
for
them in the first place).
Critics will.
The same critics that doomed wikipedia and claimed britannica will
always be better?
Thanks,
RN