Talk:Only Time Knows

Challenge article deletion due to non-notability
Although this article may not meet the impossibly high notability guideline, it has plenty of secondary sources (five independent, one liner notes, and one by their current publisher), and two of these were added since the notability notice was added.

Per the notability guidelines, it does not matter if the band is notable, but only if each album is notable. Since this was the band's first album and self-published, it can be argued that the album is not notable. However, I can find many other albums that fall into that category. Dixie Chicks first album Thank Heavens for Dale Evans is a very similar article to Only Time Knows and has way less references. The album is only notable because of who the Dixie Chicks are, and not for the album. That argument also applies to Bearfoot's first album. While Bearfoot is not as successful as the Dixie Chicks, in the Bluegrass scene, their fourth album was #1 in the Billboard bluegrass charts in 2009 and their fifth album was #7 most played bluegrass album in 2012, which means the band is reasonably notable. So that brings us to the question of when an album article should be allowed. If the Dixie Chicks album Thank Heavens for Dale Evans is not marked for notability failure, that seems to indicate a bias on the part of the uber-editors or a work over-load. In addition, there are all the EPs by The Cranberries, none of which are notable, and all of whose articles are simpler than for Only Time Knows.

If needed, I can find a hundred more albums that are not notable that have articles (not hyperbole), but the fact is that I don't want any album article to be deleted. Album articles are necessary to gather facts and details about the album in one easy to reference place, Wikipedia. If all the article did was to provide track names, that would be one thing, but a good album article lists track times, and who wrote each song, and the performers for the album.

You could put that information into the band article, but doing that for five albums would be clumsy, and doing it for just one album would be odd. Therefore, this album article should be left alone, and the notability notice deleted.

There was a discussion in the Notability (music) talk page on merging the merging of non-notable albums (page 14 of the archive). At the end of the discussion, one commenter posted this "Suggestion - Another option would be to delete the album article, add the basic album info in the artist or artist discog page, and provide a reference (such as Allmusic) that has the track listing and other detail. Happy new year! GoingBatty (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)". This is a poor suggestion as AllMusic is sometime incorrect about song composers, and appears to have stopped listing song composers for album tracks. This means that Wikipedia is the correctable proper source for album information, and AllMusic is only of use as a limited reference source.

In the Notability (music) edit page, user JClemens reverted a change on May 25 2013 at 00:14 with this statement "Jclemens (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,979 bytes) (+15)‎ . . (Undid revision 556678667 by FurrySings (talk) No, actually "notable" is synonymous with "has enough coverage to justify an article"). This is a remarkable statement, as this makes the article for Only Time Knows notable as there are at least three articles that cover this album, which makes it more than others that are being kept unchallenged. Mburrell (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)