@Deli nk:, I understand this article is a stub, and don't understand why it deserves the 'notability' template. The provided reference is a secondary source, review article, reviewed many times at the osteoarthritis page. Can we remove the 'notability' template and maintain it simply as a stub?Sthubbar (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The general notability guideline refers to "significant coverage" in reliable sources. The journal reference used in the article appears to be a reliable source, but in my opinion being the subject of a single such review is insufficient on its own to meet the general notability guideline. The template doesn't mean I think the subject is necessarily non-notable, just that there is currently insufficient evidence of notability presently in the article. Since it's unlikely that others will see this comment, I'll leave a note at WP:MED seeking additional opinion. Deli nk (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's a 2011 meta-analysis  if it helps. Little pob (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
One way of looking at "significant coverage" is this: When you take all the independent/non-advertising/non-manufacturer's-own-website kinds of sources together, you need to be able to write more than a stub about the subject. To use one simple rule of thumb, that means that you need to be able to write more than 10 decent, non-redundant sentences about the subject. Even if we find 200 high-quality sources, if they all say the same small thing, so that we can't write 10 different sentences, then the subject should not have a separate article on the English Wikipedia. But if you have just two sources, and one talks at length about the marketing approach for the product and another talks at length about the history of the product, then all's well.
Let me point out here that someone needs to be able to write more than a stub, which is importantly different from saying that someone needs to have already written more than a stub. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)