:::::I've never been quite satisfied with how dicdefs are repeatedly snuck through WP:NOT. The diffuse argument "beyond dictionary information" appears to be up to whomever reads the article, but it certainly doesn't stand up to a detailed check list of what dictionary information actually consists of. Let me break it down in more detail: 
 :::::*"Usage history" and "Vulgarity and offensiveness" correspond almost directly to the Wiktionary headings "Etymology" and "Usage notes" respectively. 
 :::::*"Changing attitudes" obviously has far more to do with the approach to flatulence humor than the word "fart" itself. And that's ignoring the complete lack of references and attempt at synthesis based solely on television programming. 
 :::::*The only part of the article that might be described as encyclopedic information is "In other usage", but most of it is just synonym information covering the rather limited semantic range of "fart". It doesn't even approach the enormous variety of more vulgar profanities like "fuck" or "shit" and I don't believe it merits an separate article full of other dictionary information. 
 :::::The most obvious argument for calling most of this article an expanded dicdef, though, is that that virtually all the relevant references are dictionary articles, and for all practical purposes, that includes the obscure Duck Fart drink. Fecal Matters in Early Modern Literature and Art: Studies in Scatology would be the shining exception among the sources, but previewing it in Google Books reveals that it's really about French, German and Italian humanists and their use of flatulence as a literary tool. That means it's about the cultural history of a concept, not a specific word in the English language. 
 :::::