J.F. de Wolff wrote
I would like to seek consensus on what kind of morbidity is worthy of inclusion in articles. I would say: only if someone's morbidity has *significantly* altered public perception of a disorder is this person worth mentioning (e.g. [[Lou Gehrig]] and his eponymous disease; [[Stephen Hawking]] would qualify for this as well). Otherwise, only the article *on that person* should mention morbidity and mortality.
Reasonable. In a sense it is not so important, either way, in most cases. Tuberculosis: there's a case where in a sense a historical list would be of considerable general interest. The problem with historical listings is of course that the factuality of the diagnosis can be problematic.
Charles