Fastfission has touched on an important point - the encyclopedicity of trivia.
I've had very similar arguments over some medical articles. Some articles
on diseases (e.g. [[Parkinson's disease]], [[Pneumonia]]) have grown little
lists of "famous people with pneumonia" etc.
As most know, millions of people worldwide die from pneumonia or
Parkinson's, and just because the Pope is one of them hardly makes him
worth mentioning in the article about the disease. Oddly, only some
articles have grown these lists. Nixon had thrombosis, but he's not in
[[deep venous thrombosis]]. Similarly, [[myocardial infarction]] (heart
attack) does not have a list of famous people who died from it, because it
is so very common.
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.
Jfdwolff
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 09/03/2005