Deletion of Bruce willis is a robot

Comment: I'm confused. You say you have ''read'' the policy (not guidelines) on primary sources? Then you will have read the section of  policy that prohibits: "Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc." Does the "defining terms" and "coining new words, etc." not apply here somehow? I rather think it does. The policy is in no way restricted merely to "research on scientific data". Sorry
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The purpose of 'primary source' is to prevent unverifiable articles and disputes. As you can see from the multiple links given in the BWIAR article, they all use the phrase the same way. There is no disagreement on how the term can be used. Shall we start getting rid of all what you consider to be 'primary source' articles in Wikipedia?  Maybe we could start with Sock_puppet_%28internet%29 and Badonkadonk? Just because the article says 'References' doesn't mean that those are referring to 'reliable sources' as you define them. Again, please address how Sock Puppet and Badonkadonk are different than BWIAR. Why are those valid articles, but this one is not? And don't tell me to put them up for AfD, because that would be against 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: The AYB article includes such reliable third party sources as a wired.com article featuring the term in a non-trivial manner. Is there any equivalent |verifiable third party source that cites BWIAR
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: However, A3 ''is'' policy, as is , and many view nn as a convenient extension of these policies when dealing with, for example, suspected neologisms. To quote from : "Notability is sometimes used as a synonym for verifiability, although others disagree. Wikipedia should only publish material that is verifiable and is not original research". What exactly is "AfD happy" BTW? "Simply an opinion"? ;-) I personally prefer to use the policy of  within AfD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:V||WP:NN||WP:AGF)

Comment: Obvious nn, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Fails  and probably David<span
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NFT)