From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium I, personally, believe correct, verifiable information on a subject someone might be looking for is nearly always a net positive, and that withholding such information is almost always a net negative. Publicly-available information is a cat that can't be put back into a bag, and refusing to provide it in a neutral, verifiable manner does nothing but: 1) increase the prominence of misinformation from alternative sources; and 2) increase inequality in access to information.
Some public information, such as contained in registers of sex offenders or sale prices on house transfers, is generally relatively difficult to find and search. Sure, it's public info, but it's not readily available.
Having a Wikipedia article - a notorious Wikipedia article - is a different thing. For one thing, it will tend to rank high on a Google search, whereas that Ohio register doesn't seem to be at all prominent. For another, the mere fact that there *is* an article when so many more notorious sex offenders go unmentioned here sends a message, and not one that I think Wikipedia should be sending.
The reason the subject of the article was in WP is not because of his crime(s), but because of his appearance. To my mind, by including the article, we are not presenting a professional face to the world.
And saying that the subject is now notorious and therefore notable is a circular argument.
Peter (Skyring)