On Wed, 29 Jul 2009, geni wrote:
It's too bad that the people saying that publishing the inkblots is harmful are professionals instead of New York Times editors. If it was the New York Times, they would have been unceremoniously deleted without even a WP:OFFICE.
Not really. In this case there are a number editors who've spent significant amounts of time arguing for their inclusion and are not likely to react to well to any attempted removal.
If the New York Times had claimed the information is harmful, Jimbo would have deleted the information much earlier--no editor would have gotten a *chance* to spend a significant amount of time defending it. You don't get editors investing a lot of time if you make the deletion a fait accompli before a lot of time has passed.
Jimbo isn't a commons admin.
Huh? Did I ever say he was?
The New York Times reporter information was, as far as I know, deleted using normal user editing abilities. (Which did not prevent it from becoming a fait accompli.)