What reasons do you have to argue with Wikipedia?
That would be you.
You are rejecting anything which doesn't fit your agenda, while happily accepting others.
Wikipedia has a rational claim that pixies are fictional. But they don't have any proof that pixies are fake.
According to your definition of absolute truth, it is that disproof which is required for something to not qualify.
As pixies haven't been disproven, they are absolute truth according to you, regardless of what wiki says.
As for arguing with wikipedia, are you aware your god is in the mythology portal, as it is just part of mythology?
The page on "myth" starts with "The main characters in myths are usually gods, demigods or supernatural humans.[1][2][3] Myths are often endorsed by rulers and priests and are closely linked to religion or spirituality.[1] In fact, many societies group their myths, legends and history together, considering myths to be true accounts of their remote past.[1][2][4][5] Creation myths particularly, take place in a primordial age when the world had not achieved its later form."
And there is a page devoted to Christian mythology.
The only reason your god isn't outright called a myth right on its page is because the religious nuts would go apeshit over it.
Now again, CAN YOU DISPROVE PIXIES?
If not, according to you they are absolute truth.