Looking at the sources I think the best thing to do at this point is the list all of the sources that you find questionable and we can decide what stays and what goes I do think that a lot of it should go but I feel that some of the claims that you ve removed fall squarely into the unlikely to be challenged category Of course that s obviously not true since you removed them but whatever 1 x Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy what is this referencing There s no page number or entry description 2 Mapping Reality the books goog page is not loading for me 3 Like Rolling Uphill if the publisher is trusted these 2 mentions would be good 4 x alt atheism FAQ Usenet group FAQ like a personal page blog or wiki 5 A Call to Sanity no quote the publisher looks dicey 6 xx A Call to Sanity Web Forum web forum now defunct 7 how about refuting the existence of invisible pink unicorns first known Usenet mention 8 x h2g2 not a reliable source at all it s a combination of a blog and a joke encyclopedia I used to edit there because Adams is my second favorite writer 9 Veracity of Christianity Usenet post sig 10 x Camp It s Beyond Belief not pink article link 404 11 x The God Delusion good source not pink tho 12 RS Female Bonding this isn t a bad source a fluffy ad written as an article but okay 13 x Portrait of the Invisible Pink Unicorn blog 14 x The Dragon In My Garage one of the finest easy to understand pieces written about the illogical beliefs helds by religious people but doesn t mention the IPU Fine for an other versions section once notability for the IPS thru RS is established tho 15 x Fall Redemption Of The Purple Oyster personal website not RS 16 x The Revelation of St Bryce the Long Winded Partial personal website not RS 17 x Re PROVE THAT this seems dicey to what it s supposed to be referencing x not a reliable published third party source RS reliable source fine once notability is establisehd thru RSs 2008 10 1421 34z