Deletion of Fart lighting

Comment: Obvious , 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: per #CENSORED and the subject's undeniable notability. For something that gets several hits on an http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-6486941-1194543?initialSearch=1&url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=fart+lighting&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go Amazon book search and a couple of http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22lighting.farts%22&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&um=1 Google news http://news.google.com/archivesearch?ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22fart+lighting%22 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 http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/sp.2005.52.3.315 academic paper
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: as an obvious  violation, the popular culture section violates  as well.  Well, the whole article does, really
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: This is one of the annoying articles that doesn't fit directly into any  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Certainly a |notable concept or meme, which probably could be |verified by sources.  Also, most certainly Sophomore|sophomoric
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: Doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia, and the Popular culture section violates 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA)