Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fart lighting


 * 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. Consensus is clear that there is enough reliable source material for the article. Trivia can be reworked into the article as prose. The remaining objection related to the topic being unencyclopedic, which was answered with WP:NOT. Jreferee   t / c  05:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Fart lighting

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Suggesting deletion because there is nothing here which merits encyclopedic coverage, with or without the "popular culture" section that also violates our WP:FIVE pillars.  Bur nt sau ce  22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia, and the Popular culture section violates WP:TRIVIA.  NA SC AR Fan 24 (radio me!) 22:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia" isn't an argument, and where does WP:TRIVIA say that references to a subject in popular culture should not be listed in Wikipedia articles?  Melsaran  (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is one of the annoying articles that doesn't fit directly into any WP:NOT category, but still screams out for deletion. This is still unencyclopedic content and has the potential for severe disruption once the IP vandals get their hands on this. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 22:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. So, it annoys me and is likely to get vandalized are cause for deletion. Well that will help clean things up as there are plenty of articles that annoy me and I bet most of them also get vandalism. Benjiboi 13:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Obvious WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA. Xihr 23:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete-as per allA.m.aji 11:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Tasteless, juvenile, even foolishly dangerous .... but this is part of culture among guys all over the world, and it has been for centuries. No less encylopedic than Goldfish swallowing.  Mandsford 12:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Or shorten and merge to Flatulence. Too much popular culture, not enough references. This should be a section of Flatulence which presently lacks referenced mention of fart lighting. But the present article is too fluffy for a simple merge. Surely an act which Bergman immortalized in "Fanny and Alexander" (1982), deserves a mention in the article on the gaseous effluent.Edison 15:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to flatulence as a subsection there - but only the very base essentials: The practice as a "juvenile" act as a popular or at least (perhaps) drunken and usually male party deed, how it works from a purely scientific biological and chemical standpoint, along with the presumed dangers of the practice. I have to admit however that I found myself sort of hoping for an ilustrative image or perhaps a daring (albeit probably unavoidably gross) photograph or two, to illustrate the principles and colorful lighting effects (but perhaps not so much examples of the, err, possible resulting injuries).  Guys just like fireworks, no matter the source... --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 23:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Xihr hits it in one... WP:NOT a trivia guide.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 23:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly a notable concept or meme, which probably could be verified by sources.  Also, most certainly sophomoric.  I'll try to rescue it, so could you hold open the debate until the end of the weekend? Bearian&#39;sBooties 16:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:NOT and the subject's undeniable notability. For something that gets several hits on an Amazon book search and a couple of Google news archive searches, I'm sure enough material can be pulled from reliable sources to make this article better. This, as part of the "fecal habitus" (apparently a Latin term for crap & fart culture), was even studied in a published academic paper! DHowell 03:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can be covered in wictionary if not already there.  Vegaswikian 21:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an obvious WP:NOT violation, the popular culture section violates WP:TRIVIA as well. Well, the whole article does, really.  RFerreira 00:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have made several additions and deletions as suggested, to rescue it. If it can not be saved as is, I would not object to a merger of the content and cites into Flatulence. Bearian&#39;sBooties 03:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly not encyclopaedic. I do have sympathy with the merger suggestion.--Bedivere 18:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Flatulence. It's just as encyclopedic as many other odd customs, although it doesn't need to be a separate article. Ward3001 19:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Absolutely revolting and juvenile but also hilarious. This is exactly what WP is for that paper encyclopedias generally would not or could not cover. Completely disgusting and sophomoric behavior that is of little use until you wonder "what the heck are they talking about?" Fart lighting was also a plot device of South Park: Bigger Longer & Uncut and that alone should signify it's enshrinement in pop culture. Benjiboi 22:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't realize that "hilarious" was a valid reason for inclusion. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  14:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can save the snarky comments butt...in case it's not obvious, this subject, although vulgar to many, is certainly notable enough and references have been introduced to assert its vast use in pop culture. Benjiboi 15:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You sure fooled me. Sources have been added to a trivia section, but the article contents remain to be trivial.  Bur nt sau ce  16:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually a quick glance shows that of the 18 refs, 11 are provided before the pop culture section, to which, I believe, you refer to as a "trivia section". Regardless the subject and article are not trivial so characterizing it as such only suggests a POV against the subject and article.Benjiboi 16:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why Benjiboi, could you possibly mean snarky comments like "So, it annoys me and is likely to get vandalized are cause for deletion. Well that will help clean things up as there are plenty of articles that annoy me and I bet most of them also get vandalism"??? Pot....kettle.....black? &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  03:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I stated to your accusation on my talk page i did not intend to call you a "butt" that was simply a joke as this AfD is about a flatulence subject. I apologize if that humor did not carry over. As for snarky comments let's agree that they probably don't belong on wp. I do wish this much energy was put into actually improving the article. Benjiboi 04:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I've added a dozen references and some section headers to prod some organization. Benjiboi 00:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Obvious notability has been established with references/sources, not to mention I've done it myself - several times. Wanna see? --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  00:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * funny, fairly well written but Delete or redirect to flatulence it just isn't encyclopedic.-- Sandahl  01:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for what it's worth. Danny 01:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete biggest delete I can possibly pull out &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  01:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As an admin, you should know this isn't a voting process.. care to leave a reason? Fosnez 02:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep referenced article put together well, even if it concerns a disgusting topic. Notable enough for our purposes.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable, needs a rewrite but thats no reason for deletion sofixit. Notable sources have been provided. Fosnez 02:37, 9 October 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.