Deletion of Bricemanning

Comment: Regardless of to what the term refers, or if other eponyms exist on Wikipedia, simply because the site may be notable does not mean every word used on its pages is notable by association. Please see , , and 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NEO)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NFT)

Comment: Apparent |original research, almost a classic example of  in action. I am unable to find any evidence of this term being used in a |notable  or independent publication. The arguments in favor of keeping it seem to forget that Wikipedia is |neither a personal soapbox for social change nor a dictionary. We don't make change happen, we report the changes that are ''already'' happening with as |neutral a tone as possible, if that makes sense. Where the primary purpose of an article is to "get the word out," something unencyclopedic is probably going on. Just my two cents. Regards
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NEO||WP:RS||WP:NOT||WP:NPOV)