Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fag bangle
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
— User:Huon, 22:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NEO (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)