Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invisible Pink Unicorn

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. No need to drag this on any further. SynergeticMaggot 06:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invisible Pink Unicorn

Non-notable in-joke among some Usenet members. Only 682 unique Google hits, and there are even duplicates among those. (Incidentally, two of the three "references" in the article do not mention the IPU at all, and the third is a personal Geocities site of one of the members of this quaint little club.) wikipediatrix 04:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This is not an in-joke, but is referenced in print media and books (Example ike Rolling Uphill: Realizing the Honesty of Atheism

by Dianna Narciso) May very well need clean-up and improved references.

• Strong keep. There are numerous references outside usenet. This Google search turned up 55,200 results. The article can use some cleanup as far as cites are concerned, though I would disagree on the NPOV criticisms, but that doesn't make an entry non-notable. Wyatt Riot 05:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you start advancing thru those 55,200 results, you'll see that the listing hits a dead end here, after 715 unique hits (It was 682 earlier). In other words, the other 54,000+ hits are from these same sources. Therefore, the IPU has only 715 different sources mentioning it on Google (and it's far less than 715 when you subtract the many mirrors of the Wikipedia article itself). wikipediatrix 05:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand how Google unique hits works. First google finds roughly how many pages contain the term (55,200). Then it takes the first thousand and runs the uniqueness filter on those thousand pages. So of the first one thousand hits 715 are unique. The other 54,200 pages contain more unique pages. For a very rough guesstimate of all unique pages calculate thusly: 55200 * (715 / 1000) =~ 39,000 unique pages (i.e. assume that 71,5% of those 55,200 are unique). Weregerbil 08:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, to test this: search for "Microsoft". At this time google finds 191 unique hits. I think it's safe to say more than 191 web pages in the world mention Microsoft. Weregerbil 08:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Or search for "White House". At this time Google only finds 821 unique hits. [1] Google's uniqueness test is highly unreliable. Dionyseus 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not really unreliable, it just works in a certain way that is easy to misunderstand. Weregerbil 17:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep per Wyatt Riot. More references are probably needed, but the existence of a large number of external links suggests that more references can probably be found. I know it doesn't count for anything, but the fact that this "quaint little club" has crossed my radar - and I'm hardly even aware of what Usenet is - would say that it's gone a bit further than the nominator would have thought. BigHaz 05:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as per above. Dionyseus 06:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This article is just as real and verifiable as the pages about God. That is its point. If it gets deleted, it would only follow logic to get rid of pages concerning other gods.

• Strong Keep - This article is well referenced and verifiable. --Daniel Olsen 06:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per BigHaz - I have also come across IPUists without having any idea of what Usenet is; such cultural concepts tend to spread through the Internet, so the article might be more visited in the future. I myself have embraced the IPU concept, and this article has been very informative to me. I believe that Google count is not the only standard by which articles should be kept or deleted; after all this is an encyclopedia, not a mere factbook of popular ideas/objects. — Bill the Greek 08:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — per Wyatt Riot Martinp23 10:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Let's keep this pink and more furry variant of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Unfortunately, things like this are notable. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 11:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• If wikipediatrix's claim regarding the references is correct, since this isn't a vote and no one has provided other sources, an admin with some chutzpah could close this as "delete" no matter how many people say keep. A large number of google hits where there might be sources doesn't mean anything. It says in giant black letters on the verifiability policy that "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." So chop-chop, get to work. - brenneman ^{L} 11:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I've already added a direct reference to IPU from the alt.atheism FAQ, and I'll be adding more cites shortly. Wyatt Riot 13:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That very page makes the excellent point that "Because alt.athe ism is a n unmoderated newsgroup, it tends to be high in volume and high in noise." This does not qualify as a reliable source. - brenneman ^{L} 02:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep -- Quite a few web sites seem to think that this is a "notable" enough phenomenon to try to make money selling the IPU bumper stickers.Atlant 13:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:OBVIOUS WilyD 13:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What is so obvious about it? wikipediatrix 13:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh - referenced (thought not completely) article on a widespread cultural phenomenon of encyclopaedic interest. WilyD 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Speedy Keep. I have never used that phrase before, this is NOT a NN in-joke, at all. J Milburn 13:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - wikipediatrix (who incidentally has broken wikipedia's rules in choosing her username, implying some kind of official position) has given no reason whatsoever why the article should be deleted. I get 48,000 google hits, but thats not the point. It is not an 'in joke', it is a serious device for the discussion of the logical arguments behind religious belief, and the modern day evolution of earlier concepts such as Bertrand Russells teapot. I propose that wikipediatrix should be deleted. Poujeaux 13:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Hey - no need for personal attacks - whilst one may be hard pressed to figure out how Wikipediatrix remained unaware of this all this time, no need to assume bad faith - it's just a mistake on her part, and we all make mistakes. WilyD 13:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Attacking the nominator is a sure sign of desperation. I stand by my comments, and note that many of the "Keep" voters are not giving valid policy-based reasons for their vote. I remain unconvinced of this subject's notability. wikipediatrix 13:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you may be surprised to discover that notability isn't a criterion for deletion. The article passes WP:V, WP:SPAM, WP:HOAX, WP:COPYVIO and WP:VAIN, the only policies or guidelines that are really appropriate for discussing a potential deletion to this article. WilyD 13:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that it passes WP:V, because WP:V states "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." What do we have? A couple of Usenet items (not valid sources), a Geocities personal site (not a valid source), a Carl Sagan book that does not mention the IPU, and some near-nonsense text called " Red Iguana Dawn" that also does not mention the IPU. wikipediatrix 14:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The alt-atheism.org is an okay source, without checking too much I think one or two of the external links are okay sources as well. Not a real big deal, given the overwhelming concensus to keep here. WilyD 14:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• It very much is a big deal - consensus on a micro-forum like this cannot override one our most core policies. Currently the sum total of citations in reliable sources appears to be "The campers said they like the intellectual games, including an "invisible unicorn" exercise. Campers must try to prove that imaginary unicorns - as a metaphor for God - don't exist." from Cincinnati.Com  » The Enquirer  » Local news. - brenneman ^{L} 02:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that you are making it a bigger deal than it actually is, Aaron. The article is better cited than most of Wikipedia's articles. You earlier mentioned that you fear a rogue administrator with some "chutzpah" may delete the article despite the 100% concensus to keep the article, well you really shouldn't fear that because that's what we have the Deletion Review process for, to protect articles from mistakes and rogue administrators.Dionyseus 02:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Speedy Keep. Notable and wikipediaworthy. --Billpg 13:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong speedy keep per all above. Easily meets the "I heard about this before I saw it on Wikipedia" test. Smerdis of Tlön 14:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Have seen used and used myself regularly in discussion with fundie Christians. May have started out as Usenet joke, but can probably be found on every religion discussion board on teh net, somewhere. Definitely notable. Dev920 14:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, a well-established meme and pro-atheist argument. JIP | Talk 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep has a longer and more widespread pedigree than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I've actually purchased an IPU pendant myself, to ward off atheist vampires with. Bryan 15:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well-known internet and pop-culture phenomenon that passes the policies noted by WilyD. Agent 86 17:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no such thing as invisible pink unicorns. This is patent nonsense. Keep. Sorry to offend HMIP (MPBUHFAE). I just had a revelation: She doesn't exist in the traditional sense, but definitely a longstanding, widespread icon in online atheist culture. This is the kind of stuff no paper encyclopedia will cover, but is fine in Wikipedia. Rohirok 18:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep for all the reasons mentioned above. Verifiable, notable, and worth inclusion. Arkyan 19:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Dianna Narciso also writes about belief in IPUs in her book Like rolling uphill. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-16t19:33z
• Keep: For every reason mentioned above. A long-standing icon in the online atheist community, and quite notable. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 19:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep only 682 google hits? This is small? reference.com books; these seem like credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Somerset219 02:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Psst, your first link is just a wikipedia mirror. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly my point, it's a verifiable resource that took wikipedias already written article and used it, which means they obviously found it verifiable... Somerset219 04:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Umm... that's not usually how mirrors work, mate. Robotforaday 05:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep No stupider than Jesus --Xrblsnggt 02:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ok now, that wasn't necessary. Rohirok 03:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Perhaps somebody could make a useful policy "Wikipedia is not for newsgroup in-jokes, no matter amusing members of those newsgroups think they are". Robotforaday 03:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It started out as a joke in the early 90's, but has since then been widely used by atheists as a mind tool to remind people how illogical the "you have no proof that it does not exist therefore it exists" argument. Dionyseus 03:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment jumping the shark is also a catchphrase, and could be considered an "inside joke". however, it's historical and encyclopedic, just like IPU. Somerset219 04:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep per many others, but is all this bickering really necessary? Jacqui^★ 04:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

• comment probably not, but does it matter? Somerset219 04:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.