Dan Miller wrote:

...

I agree that as a matter of taste, we should (for now) keep this page deleted. However, as a matter of law, there is no reason for us not to publish this information.

True, but we'll want a page once the trial's over. Or else we ought to delete [[Nicole Brown Simpson]].

The question nobody seems to be asking is whether this person actually warrants a separate page. Is there really any encyclopedic information worth including about her, other than as the victim in a high-profile crime case? In the tangents of the OJ trials, there was also a fair amount of publicity about Nicole personally, from which we could draw the information to improve on the measly stub that's there now. While on the other hand, Kobe Bryant's accuser is unlikely to be the subject of biographical features afterwards, unless she chooses to be more public than she has been.

"Fame" and "importance" are uncertain concepts to use here, but is having your 15 minutes in relative anonymity worth keeping in an encyclopedia? I would just redirect the page to [[Kobe Bryant]]. We can still choose whether to publish her name on that page, either now or later. I agree that for now it's better not to, but it would be less objectionable as time passes. Assuming that with the passage of time, anybody even cares what her name is. We're an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.

Lest I be misunderstood, I have at least some sympathy for the cause of the "low encyclopedic" we just discussed. But in the long run, a separate page for this woman is not like including a few significant restaurants in [[New Haven, Connecticut]] - it's like writing separate articles on each and every one of those restaurants. Not every person who gets mentioned in an encyclopedia article also warrants their own article.

--Michael Snow