>It could just as easily be argued the other way, I think. It's presumptuous and perhaps insulting to purport to create a >biography on a person, under her own name, while merely recounting a single tragic occurrence in her life. Since there >is often not enough verifiable information to create a biography, it makes some sense to not assert that Wikipedia is >doing so. Moreover... It's generally bad practice to apply principles of search engine optimization to editing an >encyclopedia. 
+1. I would also add two other caveats:
  • Presenting the article as a biography of the victim would also invite coatracking, the insertion of embarrassing information from the victim’s past. It’s easier to justify removing such information when the article is about the event and you can limit that information to “only if it’s relevant” to the death or murder.
  • It would also invite people to reframe the article as a biography of the suspect/perpetrator. While serial killers get this, they’re generally the exception. But I am glad that, when I expanded it, I renamed what had been [[Stephanie Lazarus]] to [[Murder of Sherri Rasmussen]]. Despite a lengthy career in the LAPD, none of what Det. Lazarus did in that capacity made her notable in the way that being investigated by her own colleagues and then convicted of a 20-year-old killing will. The crime was notable, and it got the victim’s name.
Daniel Case