On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Jeff Raymond wrote:
This is when we start looking incredibly dumb as an organization when we delete articles about subjects that obviously exist, are obviously well know, and are actually verifiable, but because we can't bring ourselves to trust a source that isn't available in dead tree form somewhere, we won't have the article. Doesn't make a lot of sense.
This sounds like a classic example of stretching the wrong rule because the right rule doesn't exist. It happens a lot in the real legal system, and usually causes more problems than it solves because once you've stretched a rule to cover the case, that becomes a precedent to interpret the rule in that manner forever. (See: Commerce Clause.)
WP:RS is already broken, especially when it comes to not allowing web and other self-published sources for non-academic subjects. If you want to delete the GNAA article, I suggest either using Ignore All Rules to delete it, or coming up with a new rule. I suggest a rule something like "A Wikipedia article may be deleted if merely creating and publicizing a neutral article advances the goal of the article's subject." (Of course a full version of the rule would have to be worded more carefully so you don't delete articles about Wikipedia itself.)