Skip to content
WikiBusines

Wikipedia for healthcare · notability index 2026

Wikipedia page for a medical company: what passes and what gets deleted

In healthcare, pharma and wellness, 51% of topics in our 2018–2026 assessments have low notability confidence, 49% medium, none high. A page is possible where independent press has written about the company itself, so we check the sources first and only then write.

Notability audit · from €490 Create a page · from €2,400

// 51% low confidence — our assessment pipeline, not the market · prices from the 11.2026 price list · paid edits are disclosed in WikiBusines' name

wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_Nindex 2026 · 51% low

sources the scanner goes throughindependent significant: 3 of 6

Company N is a medical device manufacturer for diagnostics, founded in 2016.[1] It makes portable analyzers for laboratories.[2]

Company N
Type
medical device manufacturer
Focus
diagnostics
Certification
per registry
  1. ReutersTier 1editorial article about the company✓ counts
  2. Financial TimesTier 1editorial article about the market and the company✓ counts
  3. The Wall Street JournalTier 1editorial article about the deal✓ counts
  4. JAMATier 1peer-reviewed publication about the device≈ facts only
  5. Company websitepress release about certification✗ doesn't count
  6. Forbes (staff writers)Tier 1interview with the CEO✗ doesn't count

passes: 3 significant independent

Company N is a pharmaceutical R&D company developing therapies for rare diseases.[1] One of its drugs is in clinical trials.[2]

Company N
Type
pharmaceutical R&D company
Focus
therapies
Stage
clinical trials
  1. Financial TimesTier 1editorial article about a licensing deal✓ counts
  2. ReutersTier 1news report on a regulator's decision on the drug✓ counts
  3. The Wall Street JournalTier 1mention in a market overview, one sentence✗ doesn't count
  4. JAMATier 1peer-reviewed publication of a clinical study≈ facts only
  5. Trial registryentry created by the company itself≈ facts only
  6. Bloomberg profilesTier 3profile based on company data✗ doesn't count

borderline: 2 significant independent

Company N is a network of outpatient clinics, founded in 2012.[1] It has several branches in large cities.

Company N
Type
clinic network
Focus
outpatient care
License
per registry
  1. BBCTier 1editorial report on the network✓ counts
  2. Dotdash Meredith (Verywell)Tier 3"best clinics" roundup✗ doesn't count
  3. Forbes (staff writers)Tier 1interview with the founder✗ doesn't count
  4. Regulator registrylicense entry≈ facts only
  5. Company websitepatient reviews and clinic news✗ doesn't count
  6. The GuardianTier 1mention in a market piece✗ doesn't count

does not pass: 1 significant independent

auto
51%of topics in the industry have low confidence
4–5weeks per page
90days of monitoring and guarantee
€2,400English Wikipedia page, from

Why a page

Why a medical or pharma company needs a Wikipedia page: trust, search and AI answers

A company page is read by the people who make decisions: patients, doctors, partners and investors. Below is what it gives you and what we do with the page at each stage.

What a page gives you

Verification before trust

Patients, doctors and partners check a clinic or company through search. A neutral article with sources gives them a verified description instead of advertising.

Regulatory and clinical history in one place

Approvals, trials, deals and ownership changes are described neutrally and with sources, instead of being scattered across press releases.

AI answers and the knowledge panel

ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity rely on encyclopedic sources for medical queries, and Google shows a knowledge panel about the company.

Protection from misinformation

Rumors, outdated facts and confusion with similarly named companies are corrected in an article that is updated with sources.

We professionally create, edit and maintain Wikipedia pages for healthcare

  1. Page creation

    from €2,400 English · 4–5 weeks

    A neutral article about a company or institution, with clinical and regulatory facts only from reliable sources. 90 days of monitoring and guarantee.

  2. Editing and updates

    €700–€1,900 2–3 weeks

    New funding rounds, licenses, products, leadership, approvals and trial results. We remove outdated content, with sources.

  3. Maintenance

    from €720/year 12 months of guarantee

    Monitoring of changes and vandalism: unsourced medical claims do not stay in the article for long.

Paid edits are always disclosed on Wikipedia in WikiBusines' name. Page protection is applied only by Wikipedia administrators.

Why Wikipedia matters →All services →

01Does it pass

Notability in healthcare: what counts and what does not

Wikipedia assesses a company under WP:NCORP: it needs several significant, independent and reliable sources in which the company is the subject. Traffic, investment or the number of patients or clients prove nothing on their own. WP:MEDRS applies separately, but it governs medical claims in the text of the article, not the company's notability.

Three drawers for every sourceauto

Healthcare niches: where it is realistic and where it is not

WikiBusines expert estimate, 11.2026, based on which sources usually exist in the niche. It is not part of the dataset and not a statistic. Click a niche to highlight the closest profile in the top block.

Niche rating:almost neverdepends on sourcesrealisticauto

Notability index: all 13 industries →Notability audit →

01bSegments

Medicine, pharma and wellness on Wikipedia: three different segments, three different bars

The notability index groups the whole industry together, but a clinic, a pharma developer and a supplement maker have different sources and different risks. In all three, WP:MEDRS applies to medical claims in the article, not to the company's notability.

auto
Notability bar lowerhigher

What usually counts

Journalistic pieces on a network or institution: growth, deals, court and regulatory cases. Medical and business press when the clinic itself is the subject. A regulator decision on a telemedicine service that the press wrote about.

What does not count

Patient reviews, doctor rankings, "best clinics" roundups. Press releases about new equipment and new branches.

Main risk in the article

Treatment promises and patient reviews. "Certified" or "licensed" without a document from the registry.

Chance by index

  • Clinics and networksalmost never
  • Telemedicine and health appsdepends
  • Dentistry and aesthetic medicinealmost never

What usually counts

Business press on licensing deals, mergers and regulator decisions. Peer-reviewed publications and trial registry entries confirm facts, but notability comes from press coverage of the company itself.

What does not count

Press releases about the start of stages, investor presentations, sponsored reviews. A ClinicalTrials.gov entry: it is created by the company itself, so it is a primary source.

Main risk in the article

Medical claims without peer-reviewed reviews and guidelines (WP:MEDRS): efficacy taken from a press release or a single study.

Chance by index

  • Pharma and biotech: R&D, clinical stagesdepends
  • Medtech and devicesdepends

What usually counts

Investigations and critical pieces on the supplements market or a network that name the company directly. Independent clinical studies of the product as support for claims.

What does not count

Advertorial reviews, influencer tips, reviews, store pages and "best" product roundups.

Main risk in the article

Health claims without evidence and a promotional tone. The article reads like a promo, not a description of the company.

Chance by index

  • Wellness, nutraceuticals, fitnessalmost never

Niche ratingalmost neverdepends on sourcesrealisticWikiBusines expert estimate 11.2026, not a dataset

Notability index →Notability audit →

02Sources

Which outlets count for healthcare: business, trade and general press

Tier and WP:RSP status come from our media list. Peer-reviewed journals sit in the trade group: they support medical claims in the article (WP:MEDRS) but do not prove the company's own notability. What counts is the piece, not the outlet as a whole.

TierTier 1 · reliableTier 2 · with caveatsTier 3 · situationalNo consensusAvoid

WP:RSP statusgenerally reliableno consensusgenerally unreliabledeprecatedblacklistedsource category

auto

Reutershow we count the outlet's material

✓An editorial news report or article about the company, its deal or a regulator decision.

✗A one-sentence mention and a reprinted press release.

Financial Timeshow we count the outlet's material

✓Editorial pieces and investigations about the company or a market in which it is named.

✗Sponsored content and columns by outside authors.

Bloomberg Newshow we count the outlet's material

✓News and analysis about the company or a deal.

✗Bloomberg profiles: profiles built from company data; in the list they are a separate row with a lower tier.

The Wall Street Journalhow we count the outlet's material

✓An editorial article about the company, its product or a deal.

✗A mention in a market overview, a comment or an author's column.

Forbes (staff writers)how we count the outlet's material

✓A piece by a staff writer about the company, keeping the "no consensus" status in mind.

✗Forbes Contributor: columns by outside authors fall under "avoid" in the list.

PR Newswirehow we count the outlet's material

✓Nothing: it is a press release distribution service without editorial review.

✗A press release does not become an independent source, even when a large site reprints it.

JAMApeer-reviewed journal · for medical claims

✓Peer-reviewed articles and reviews as support for medical claims in the text (WP:MEDRS).

✗As proof of the company's notability: a study of a drug or device is not coverage of the company itself.

Academic journalspeer-reviewed journals · for medical claims

✓Systematic reviews and meta-analyses as support for clinical claims.

✗A single company-sponsored study does not prove notability.

Industry trade presstrade press with named editors

✓Editorial pieces about the company, its product or a deal.

✗Press releases, affiliate roundups, executive interviews and association white papers.

Dotdash Meredith (Verywell)how we count the outlet's material

✓General facts only, and with caution: there is no consensus on its reliability.

✗"Best clinics and drugs" roundups and advertorial reviews.

Healthlineblacklisted on WP:RSP

✓Nothing: the pieces are written mostly by freelancers without relevant expertise.

✗Suitable neither for notability nor for medical claims.

Natural Newsblacklisted on WP:RSP

✓Nothing: the site is blacklisted and is not cited.

✗A link to it in an article about a medical company will immediately raise a reviewer's question.

BBChow we count the outlet's material

✓An editorial report or investigation about the company or network.

✗A mention in a program or overview where the company is not the subject.

The Guardianhow we count the outlet's material

✓Editorial pieces and investigations about the company.

✗Blogs and opinion columns: these are separate sources with lower weight.

The Washington Posthow we count the outlet's material

✓Editorial pieces about a company or the market in the United States.

✗Affiliate and sponsored content.

Los Angeles Timeshow we count the outlet's material

✓Editorial pieces about a company, a deal or a market.

✗Advertising and sponsored sections.

The Timeshow we count the outlet's material

✓Editorial pieces and investigations about the company.

✗Advertising, sponsored content and authors' blogs.

Daily Mail / MailOnlinedeprecated on WP:RSP

✓Nothing: the site is marked deprecated because of weak fact-checking.

✗A link to it does not help the page and only raises a reviewer's question.

One piece, five checks: the verdict

This is how a reviewer reads every link. For medical material there is a third outcome: the source is fine for facts in the text but does not prove notability.

auto
ReutersTier 1

Company N received regulator clearance for its device

editorial article · staff writer byline

  1. ✓Independent of the company
  2. ✓Editorial piece, not a column or sponsored
  3. ✓Significant coverage of the company, not a mention
  4. ✓Not a press release disguised as news
  5. ✓Outlet not in the "avoid" category

Counts as an independent sourcepassed 5 of 5

Outlet NTier 1

Company N announced certification of a new device

"news" · text matches the company's press release

  1. ✗Independent of the company
  2. ✓Editorial piece, not a column or sponsored
  3. ✓Significant coverage of the company, not a mention
  4. ✗Not a press release disguised as news
  5. ✓Outlet not in the "avoid" category

Does not count A retold press release is not independent coverage.passed 3 of 5

JAMATier 1

Results of a study of Company N's device: a randomized trial

peer-reviewed publication · about the device, not the company

  1. ✓Independent of the company
  2. ✓Editorial piece, not a column or sponsored
  3. ✗Significant coverage of the company, not a mention
  4. ✓Not a press release disguised as news
  5. ✓Outlet not in the "avoid" category

Facts only Confirms a medical claim (WP:MEDRS) but does not prove the company's notability.passed 4 of 5

Media list: 891 outlets →Media publications →

03Risks

Why pages of medical companies get deleted: five typical reasons

A medical topic is watched by an active community of editors. They check every clinical claim against WP:MEDRS: it takes peer-reviewed reviews and guidelines from recognized health bodies, not patient or clinic experience. Below, a reviewer places a tag, and we show how we would rewrite it.

auto
{{Medical citations needed}} The medical claims in this article lack reliable peer-reviewed sources.

Drug N

Drug N effectively treats diabetes, as our clinic's experience confirms.

In a phase 3 trial, drug N was compared with placebo; the results were published in a peer-reviewed journal [1], for the efficacy assessment see the reviews [2].

what is wrongThe efficacy claim rests on the clinic's experience. For medicine that is not a source.

how we write itOnly the trial facts with a peer-reviewed source; efficacy is taken from reviews and guidelines.

WP:MEDRSno treatment promises

{{Citation needed}} The claim needs a source from a registry or a regulator decision.

Device N

Device N received regulator approval.

The company has filed an application for clearance; as of the publication date there is no regulator decision in the registry [1].

what is wrongA filing was presented as clearance. A pending 510(k) is not clearance, and a De Novo request is not an approval.

how we write itWe name the stage precisely and link to the regulator's registry entry, not to a press release.

registry entrystage without gloss

{{Notability}} It has not been shown that the subject meets the notability criteria.

Company N

Biotech company N is developing a therapy and has started phase 1 trials [press release].

We submit the article once independent press or peer-reviewed data appear; until then, a Wikidata entry.

what is wrongPreclinical stage or phase 1 only, with no published data: there are usually no independent sources yet.

how we write itWe say honestly "too early" and suggest Wikidata and alternative wikis until a source base appears.

Wikidata€490 audit

{{Advert}} The article is written like an advertisement and needs a neutral tone.

Company N

Company N is the winner of the "Best Clinic of the Year" award and a leader in its segment.

An independent outlet wrote about the award [1]; the award itself does not confer notability, so it is one fact among others.

what is wrongThe award is presented as proof of notability, and "leader" has no source.

how we write itWe mention an award only when independent press wrote about it; we do not use judgments like "leader".

neutral toneno "leader"

{{COI}} The author of the article has a conflict of interest with the subject.

Clinic N

Thousands of patients thank the clinic, and its equipment is certified to an international standard.

The clinic holds a license, number in the regulator's registry [1]; we do not quote patient reviews in the article.

what is wrongPatient reviews are not a source, and "certified" without a document from the body that issued the certificate cannot be verified.

how we write itLicenses and certificates only from a registry or a document; no patient photos or reviews.

from a document onlyno reviews

Guarantees →Recovery of a deleted page →

04Article

Wikipedia article about a medical company: structure, infobox, what it contains and what it does not

A neutral description: what the company is, which products or services it has, which regulatory and scientific facts exist, and what has been written about it, including critically. Every claim has a footnote to an independent source. There are no clinical promises, price tags or reviews in it.

auto
wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_N

Company N

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Company N
Type
medical device manufacturer
Focus
diagnostics
Country
United Kingdom
Certifications
per registry[2]

Company N is a medical device manufacturer for diagnostics[1].

History

[1]

Products and services

[3]

Science and regulator

[2][4]

Criticism and incidents

[5]

Sources

  1. Reuters, editorial article
  2. Regulator registry
  3. The Wall Street Journal, article
  4. JAMA, peer-reviewed publication
  5. BBC, report

Historyfootnote [1]

When and why the company was founded, key stages of growth, deals and ownership changes.

✓The basis is independent editorial pieces about the company.

✗The company's own website and press releases are good only for dates and names.

Products and servicesfootnote [3]

What exactly the company makes or provides, for whom, in which countries. We describe, we do not advertise.

✓Descriptions in business and trade outlets.

✗Slogans, price tags and unsourced comparisons with competitors.

Science and regulatorfootnotes [2], [4]

Regulator decisions, clinical trials, publications. Approvals are presented as facts, not as proof of notability.

✓A registry entry for approvals; peer-reviewed reviews for medical claims (WP:MEDRS).

✗Treatment promises and efficacy conclusions taken from a press release.

Criticism and incidentsfootnote [5]

If independent press wrote about cases, product recalls or complaints, they go into the article: a neutral article does not consist of praise alone.

✓Editorial pieces and regulator decisions.

✗Rumors, anonymous reviews and social media posts.

Sourceslist of footnotes

The scanner checks every footnote: independent, editorial, substantive. We replace weak links before submission.

✓Several different outlets, not five links to one.

✗Press releases, Crunchbase, directories and "best of" roundups.

What is left outcut from the draft

  • slogans and "market leader"judgment without a source
  • price tags and promotionsan article is not a price list
  • patient reviews and photosnot a source, and an ethics issue
  • rankings and awards without an article about themthey do not confer notability
  • photos without a free licenseWikimedia Commons will not accept them

Page creation →Image check →

05Process

From audit to a page in 4–5 weeks: steps for healthcare

The overall process is the same as for any company. What differs in healthcare is how we handle clinical claims and registries.

4–5 weeks in total to publicationauto
90-day windowday 90 of 90

monitoringsupportguarantee80% refund if a published page cannot be defended after 3 attempts within this window

How it works →Annual support →

06Pricing

How much a healthcare page costs: price-list prices, no industry markups

A medical topic does not cost more. The price depends on the language edition and the scope of work, not on the industry.

first

Notability audit

from €4903–5 days

  • written verdict on every source
  • "passes / too early" verdict
  • credited if you go on within a month
Order the audit

English Wikipedia

Page creation

from €2,4004–5 weeks

  • draft, disclosure, submission, edits
  • 90 days of monitoring and guarantee
  • protection is applied only by administrators
Create a page

Ukrainian, French, Spanish

Other language editions

from €1,500per language edition

  • same process and guarantees
  • prices by language are in the price list
  • draft translated from English
All prices

Guarantee: 80% refund if a published page cannot be defended after 3 attempts within the 90-day window. Guarantee terms →

Price calculator →

07Questions and answers

Wikipedia for medical companies: frequently asked questions

Does an FDA approval or a CE mark count as notability?

It is an important fact for the article, but not notability on its own. You need independent press pieces about the company or the device, or significant coverage in peer-reviewed literature. A registry entry confirms the approval, and what has been written about it proves notability.

Our drug or device appears in peer-reviewed journals. Does that make the company notable?

No, not by itself. Peer-reviewed publications support the medical claims in the article (WP:MEDRS), but a study of a product is not significant coverage of the company. Notability comes from independent pieces about the company itself, while publications make the article more accurate.

We work with five large hospitals. Is that enough?

Only if independent press described the partnership. Joint announcements and statements by the parties are primary sources: they confirm the fact of the collaboration, not notability.

What counts as a source for health IT and digital medicine? Do registries, PubMed and Crunchbase count?

Editorial pieces from trade and business outlets with named editors, for example STAT, MedTech Dive, Fierce Healthcare. Regulator registries (FDA, EMA, NHS) and PubMed confirm facts and medical claims, but not notability. A ClinicalTrials.gov entry is created by the company itself, so it is a primary source. Crunchbase has deprecated status on WP:RSP. Association white papers, conference materials and letters of recommendation do not count.

Is a pharma company with a licensed molecule notable?

Licensing deals are often covered by trade outlets such as Fierce Pharma and BioPharma Dive and by the national business press. If the pieces are in-depth and editorial, they may be enough as a basis for an article. Before the deal, without independent publications, it is much harder, and an audit will show the real picture.

Can we skip the audit?

Technically yes, but we do not recommend it. In this industry 51% of topics have low confidence. The first assessment is free and takes about 10 minutes; if the case is unclear, a paid audit (from €490, 3–5 days) shows whether there is anything to submit, and its cost is credited to the project if you go on within one month.

What if the index says "low"?

The index describes the industry, not your company: exceptions happen. The audit will show which independent publications are missing. Until they exist, there are fallback routes: an entry in Wikidata, pages on alternative wikis (Wikitia, EverybodyWiki) and systematic work on media publications.

Full FAQ →

Related pages

For companieshow we create pages Notability auditfrom €490 · written verdict Notability index13 industries, open data Media listwhich outlets count as sources For tech companiesneighboring industry, its own sources

Healthcare and Wikipedia: we will tell you honestly whether your company passes

Notability audit from €490: 3–5 days and a written verdict on every source. The cost is credited to the project if you decide to go on within one month. If the answer is "too early", we will say so.

Notability audit · from €490Create a page
  1. 1
    Profile and countryClinic, medtech, pharma or digital health, and where the company operates.
  2. 2
    Publications about youLinks to pieces in outlets, not to your own website or press releases.
  3. 3
    Regulatory and scientific recordsRegistry numbers, publications, trial registrations: we present them as facts.