Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fag bangle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fag bangle

Fag bangle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable slang term, and this couldn't be expanded beyond a dictionary definition anyway. Urban Dictionary can be edited by anyone and isn't a reliable source. No other references. Melsaran (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to post this both on your page and here however i wansnt sure where i was supposed to air my views....In what way does it differ from the term Fag Hag which has an article? Its a term that is used in popular culture and used on both shows that have been mentioned. It is also written about in the press. see [1] I realise it may not be your perticular cup of tea but i feel that it should be included. it is a new article which i created so that others could edit and add too etc. Is that not the point of wikipedia? — Fagbangle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC).

The following comment was originally posted by me on my talk page, reposting it here for clarity:
Welcome to Wikipedia! I nominated your article for deletion because I don't think that the cultural significance of the term is big enough to warrant a separate encyclopedia article. It arguably couldn't be expanded much beyond a dictionary definition. Also, there were no reliable sources presented in the article that established the notability of the subject, and I couldn't find any of them on Google. Please read WP:NEO and consider whether this is really worth an article. Cheers, Melsaran 21:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - the reasons are probably best explained by contrasting it to fag hag: That article has multiple sources discussing the term, at least some of which seem to be published in scientific journals, while this has Urban Dictionary and a few passing mentions in the press. There seem to be no further sources available; Google gives rather few hits, most of them forums, none (that I looked at) reliable sources. Google Scholar and Google Books both came up empty. For comparison, "fag hag" gets 138 and 600 hits, respectively. It's clearly a neologism that hasn't found wide use. Huon 22:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Beyond that, the Ugly Betty reference probably came from a writer who watched Ab Fab, with little or no use in between. I heard fag hag used in the mid-Seventies - I'm sure it goes back a lot longer than that. If and when this one catches on in the same way, it can be added. MarkBul 22:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as an obvious and trivial violation of WP:NOT#DICDEF. VanTucky Talk 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per VanTucky. Into The Fray T/C 23:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki or whatever it is they call it when something gets transferred to the Wiktionary part of this site. Author's explanation of the term makes for a good dictionary definition of this neologism, which kind of equates to a "token" gay man that a woman includes when she says "some of my best friends are gay". This actually may be an article somewhere, since it's not uncommon. Just as guys get along better with lesbians than most women do, a lot of women enjoy the company of gay men, and it's seen in film (as in Blast From the Past where Alicia Silverstone and Dave Foley share a house) or in TV (where Jack, Janet and Chrissy put on a charade in Three's Company) Mandsford 17:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as violating WP:NEO, per nom by Melsaran. Bearian 17:21, 16 September 2007 (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.