Here's the article, which makes it sound as if it was a Hail Jimbo type event, and rather boring (Jimbo is called "trim" in the NYT, which is better than the coverage he got in "W"...). Nothing groundbreaking here, but some interesting quotes.

Some exerpts :

And yet he thinks we should plenty more BLPs? Hmm...

Oh, and a good quote from the linked discussion:

Somebody needs to brush up on WP:DEAL...

What he thinks is of little relevance anymore, but he is correct even if hypocritical about it.

Tell that to Cla68, who does not fit that ignorant stereotype. Believe everything you read in WP? Of course not. WP as a good place for general information? Yes.

WTF? Okay, wait. So, writing about pop culture is useless? But he wants bios on me and my family? And on you and yours?

Right. Please tell me he was some sort of wasted when he said that. How utterly ridiculous. Granted, this is personally offending to me considering I was a major contributor to taking Maynard James Keenan to Featured Article, but give me a break. I take great pride in knowing that the Wikipedia article on MJK is the best source of information about him on the internet. Why the hell would anyone want to search about some random people who have done nothing of note? That's not useless? An article on my neighbor who does nothing but work and sleep is useful information? An article on some random kid in a third-world county is useful?

I've got a good idea of what is useless and, unfortunately, hurting plenty in this whole situation, but I'll just keep my mouth shut.

Oh my God.. I don't mind inclusionists, but being inclusionist about living people is morally bankrupt. I wish he wouldn't say things like that.

As for inclusionism/deletionism, I mark it up to that Economist article. I mean, that debate really captures the wiki zeitgeist of... early 2005 maybe. I'm well known among my friends as a Wikipedia editor, and when that article came out they kept asking me about my views. It's a credit to the authors that they could make it so interesting, but because of the story, it's the last thing a lot of people have heard about Wikipedia. And BLPs? That's what seems like old news--Siegenthaler, 2005, a passing note. Inclusionism is the hip subject. Interesting reversal.

He does. And has no idea of what that would mean, because HE is personally protected in his Wiki-bubble, bio-wise. And so are his family and his many girlfriends. You can read his Wiki without even finding out how many kids he has, or what their names are. This is not a standard applied to other people's BLPs-- just Jimmy's. And when the public part of his divorce comes out, you won't find that neutrally included, either.

What we really need is what editor:One here on WR has suggested: A semi-neutral but really detailed BIO of Jimbo. Which would include that entire Marsden chat-log, since it's publically available and relates to the governance of a major internet undertaking which is known about widely. I really don't think Jimbo has been forced to drink his own medicine, YET. Incredibly.

News-stories are one thing. Finding them all perfectly writen up, connected, and sourced at the top of a Google search, so that anybody can get a sense of what kind of person you are, from just a well-written description of your reference-able actions, well, that's something else again.

For my part, I hope he will never stop saying things like that. The more he says that and gets taken at his word, with the resultant consequences, the faster the media and public will finally cotton on to Wikipedia's moral bankruptcy and dangers, thus bringing nearer The Great Wiki-Ragnarok™.

What an empty little man you are Mr Wales. Too many good scholars have given their time, energy and emotion too, to Wikipedia, only to see their work undone, receive abuse from abusive editors and admins, and eventually leave, get blocked or even banned.

"They're not hurting anything", Mr Wales? Oh, you disgust me, yet again! Has this man got even a ounce of moral fiber left?

No. He is on a moral-fiber free diet, and this has caused obstipation of many areas of Wikipedia for some time.

While this attitude is better than outright deletionism, it's similar in its essential spirit: Jimbo is saying that this stuff should be kept because it's harmless, not because it has value as information. He agrees with the deletionists that it's worthless, but doesn't agree that it's worthwhile to purge it. To me, that's closer to deletionism than inclusionism, because inclusionism recognizes the value in such content and considers it desirable to have.

It's not clear, but he could just as well be implying it should be kept because it pleases the people who write it, to do so. Which is a thought I actually agree with, in cases where no other damage is done. Which is the case with The Simpsons or Pokémon, but NOT for Britney Spears.

If it pleases people to write something, it will surely please others who like this kind of thing, to read it. If you're writing about stuff that doesn't care if you write about it or not, everybody wins. In that case, no problem. Only in the case of BLP, and perhaps to some (much) lesser extent in writing about active corporations or recently deceased people, is there a problem. It could be fixed by simply outlawing BLP, and requiring some reasonable sensitivity in writing about the reputations of the others. Most of what's on WP wouldn't be affected at all.