Wikipedia

Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 15

< Talk:List of best-selling music artists
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Therein8383 in topic Lady Gaga Open discussion
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

Is this a English singers list only?

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

And what about Tino Rossi, Alla Pugacheva and Nana Mouskouri??? Everybody with more than 250 million records sold.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Migang2g (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

--Migang2g (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Julio Iglesias, Vicente Fernández & Nana Mouskouri are already on the list and are referenced with reliable sources. See below discussion on Enrique Iglesias. Juan Gabriel has a number of certifications in the USA, Argentina and Mexico, but has nowhere near 100 million records.
As for the others, Tino Rossi only has certifications in France while Camilo Sesto has a solitary cert in Argentina and Alla Pugacheva has none. So Juan Gabriel is the only artist who is even worth discussing about being added to this list. Mattg82 (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Lady GaGa ...

Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

I have seen,yesterday,that Lady Gaga ha sold 55 milion records and was written at the last table(50 to 75 milion) ... why she isn't written on the table now? AriandaGAGA (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

She was removed because her claim was backed up by her own wikipedia page. As these pages are prone to having inflated figures added in by the fans of the music artist they cannot be used for this. You can see the box at the top of the page for more information about what sort of sources can be used for this page.Hitthat (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Tank you for the answer ... but can someone do a research about what have she really sold worldwide? AriandaGAGA (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

Just looking at her Cert's on her page, I would say that 25 million records would be realistic. Due to the type of artist she is her fans tend to buy digital singles rather than albums, which gives a large boost to her record sales. Hitthat (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC) wow ... thank you! well ... now i'll pray one day she will be written here AriandaGAGA (talk) 12:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA

--GagaLittleMonster (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)Um, i believe this is a reliable source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/lady-gaga-sells-out-around-the-globe-with-her-2010-monster-ball-tour-and-announces-2011-north-american-dates-2010-05-10 So i think she sold approximately 50+ million records in a year and a half. Even if it's not reliable, she'll sure make the list in a year or something.

Lady Gaga was recently inserted into the list with the very source above, I; however, removed her from the list once I was done going over Gaga's certified sales. The source above claims that the singles "Just Dance," "Poker Face," "Lovegame," "Paparazzi," "Bad Romance" and "Telephone" combined have sold 40 million units which does not correlate with the figure which her certified singles sales suggest. But the source also claims that her album sales is 11.5 million which somewhat comes close to the figure of Gaga's certified album-sales. These is what her certified sales look like:
Note that from all these markets above, we have only some 16,9 million in singles certified sales, this would never turn into 40 million even if we had singles sales from every single market in the world. As for albums sales, it is possible that she's sold over 11 million worldwide as her certified album-sales are at 8.2 million.--Harout72 (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
She has sold 10+5 milions albums and over 40 milions singles ... why she is not listed ??? AriandaGAGA (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC) AriandaGAGA
Gaga is now at 64 million records Worldwide. She was awarded a plaque, during her tour, listing 13 million album sales and 51 million single sales. Totally 64 million. The image is here: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uCnFFyMh9UE/TGPvRBChpBI/AAAAAAAAB1s/ctNfInqT588/s1600/gaga-award-e1281611668415.jpg Angelic-alyssa (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a more reliable source, the most actually, her own UK site: http://ladygaga.co.uk/news.php?item=242 I think it's about time she was added, and if you're requesting a single figure, this means she has sold 60+ million records.--Hussein Ibrahim (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Artists sites cannot be used as they are not regarded as reliable. Once again, it should be a single figure coming from a reliable third party source.--Harout72 (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I completely support you Harout. There is no way she has sold 40 million digital singles when their certifications don't even add up to a third of the listed amount. Same BS that happened with Michael Jackson's sales.--PeterGriffin • Talk 09:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that a reliable source should be used, but in regards of the amount of singles sold by her been over 40 million I think that is defenetaly possible, certified sales are not the same as units sold, many singles and albums are undercertified if the record label don't care to apply for one. Here is a link from Paul Grein blog on Yahoo, he used to write the "Chart Beat" section on Billboard in the 80s. In the link he said that she sold more than 25 million digital singles only in the U.S., he clearly have access to SoundScan numbers. [2] With this, the 40 million singles sold seems very possible. Frcm1988 (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that Grein states The digital tracks from the album have sold a combined total of more than 25 million units, which doesn't necessarily mean that he speaks of singles' sales only. The tracks from The Fame Monster have been downloaded 25 million times; in other words, if I want to have the entire album (The Fame Monster) in Digital-format, I download every single track individually. And that's what Grein means in his statement, he doesn't refer to only the tracks that have been released as singles. So, the tracks on The Fame Monster that get downloaded by consumers and are not released as singles are counted towards the sales of the album, and even the single-release-titles which are downloaded directly from the album as here are counted towards the sales of the album. Anyways, I'm currently in search of a reliable source which states Gaga's sales as a single figure, not in two figures, one for singles and one for albums. If someone comes across a source claiming a logical 50 or 55 million (for albums and singles combined), we could put her up on the list as she will soon collect a lot more certifications that she currently has, but again the source should state one figure only.--Harout72 (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes but if you only count the sales of the songs that was released as singles, she is over 22 million downloads. But anyway, is going to take some time for someone to put her total record sales, as she is a relatively new. Also note that IFPI have worldwide sales of "Poker Face" at 9.8 million and "Just Dance" at 7.7 as of November 2009.[3] Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, so far RIAA's available certifications for Gaga's singles don't suggest anything remotely close to 22 million; however, I believe very soon RIAA's going to issue new certifications for her singles as well as re-certify her older releases, which may help her certified singles easily surpass the 15 million mark, but again I strongly doubt that it will bring it anywhere near 20 million. Worldwide, I'm sure the actual-sales of her singles has already reached and even surpassed 22 million, but just in US, is not likely. Anyways, as I mentioned above, I'm willing to put her up on the list with some 50 or 55 million (single-figure-claim), as I realize that lot of her records have yet to be certified and re-certified and with this pace she's selling her records, she'll definitely achieve 50-55 million records soon, but for now, the figures that are being tossed about are simply figures for marketing purposes.--Harout72 (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I said before that if the record company, in this case Interscope dosen't care about the certification and don't pay money to the RIAA, they don't give it to her, even if she is supposed to be diamond. "Justa Dance" and "Poker Face" have sold over 5 million each, yet they are both certified 4xplatinum, "Lovegame" is at 2,215,000, "Paparazzi" is at 2,616,000, "Bad Romance" is at 4,154,000, all are only certified 1xplatinum, "Telephone" is at 2,342,000 and "Alejandro" is at 1.732, neither is certified. Now that a lot of people in music forums can get the inside information of SoundScan's weekly numbers for charts such as the Hot Digital or the Hot 100 Singles Sales or the weekly numbers of the UK Singles Chart, the actual number of units being sold can be known, I even can go there and add up the numbers week by week. So I don't know how can you say is not likely that she passed the 20 million sales in the U.S., when Paul Grein have the totals there. An example is that you only have 16.8 million certified for all of her singles, and IFPI have 17.5 copies sold just for her two first singles. The RIAA certifications are for marketing purposes, common people don't care how many copies she sold, that is why the company applies for one. That is why some companies overship albums, to apply to a higher level, and some even receive the certification before it is available to buy. I don't say that you add her now, but I don't think that this only should be based on certifications, specially when the actual numbers can be found online, like Grein's blog. And just for you to know, reliable third party sources covered the event where she received the plaque for her sales. The NME, MTV UK, the Daily Mail, the Star Tribune, etc.[4][5][6][7] Frcm1988 (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I did state that her worldwide actual-singles-sales should have surpassed 22 million, I never said that just because her certified Singles' tally from the main markets comes up to 16.9 million is necessarily that's what her actuals sales should look like too. And I'm well aware of how certifications getare issued, as I have also stated above that lot of her records have yet to be certified and re-certified. Also note that RIAA certifies physical records based on shipments minus returned units, therefore, it takes a little long for certifications of physical records to appear in the databases since it takes sometime to subtract the returned units from the shipped units and determine what the actual sales are. Also, if multiple sales-levels are simultaneously certified, only one audit certification fee is charged, and the fee is only $350.00. Not a big deal for major record companies, especially when they constantly use the number of Gold and Platinum awards received by their established artists to promote upcoming materials. I haven't looked at those US singles sales yet, which you have posted above, but if that's the case, then Gaga's sales are more impressive than I initially thought. But again, over 50 million singles in sales as claimed by news services which is given to them by her record company is clearly a promotional figure.--Harout72 (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson 300m figure is outdated

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Michael Jackson 300m figure must be deleted. Since his dead Michael Jackson has sold more than 60 million records (that doesn't includes videos, ringtones...). That includes approximately 9 million albums in the United States and 24 million albums outside US (worldwide total: 33 million albums), 12.9 million track downloads in the United States and 13,6 million paid downloads outside US (worldwide total: 26,5 million). How Michael Jackson Made $1 Billion Since His Death. Only last year (2009) in US Michael Jackson sold 8,286,000 albums and 12,355,000 digital tracks (His total digital track sales from 7/4/2004-1/3/2010 were 19,225,000 units sold). Nielsen SoundScan 2009 U.S. year-end sales report In UK since his dead Michael Jackson has sold 1.54m singles and 2.77m albums, a grand total of 4.31m sales. 4m British sales commemorate Jackson's departure. etc. etc. In table we have 3 figures for Michael Jackson: 300m, 350m and 750m and Jackson is only (!?) artist with 3 figures. At the time of Jackson dead 300m figure was low end in the first place and now with his massive recent sale that figure is completely outdated. 350m is also outdated but until we don' get newer figure from reliable source we can stick to 350m and 750m figures. BTW I would like to point out that 7 months ago Elvis' 300m figure was replaced in table with inflated 600m figure here and that went without discussion so... --Z.K. HAL (talk) 16:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not view the 300 million figure as outdated but rather a figure which is finally coming close to Jackson's certified sales. As far as inflated figures go on the list, I think large portion of editors including myself know that it is the 750 million for Jackson. As for Presley's 600 million, I would not view it as an inflated figure as his US certified sales is major, not to mention that his catalog is rather large, meaning a lot of units that lie between the first platinum-award and the second platinum-award (for example) cannot be seen, especially in the database of RIAA the platinum-award of which is high. Besides Presley's earlier records have gone uncertified in most of the developed world as associations (with an exception of RIAA in US) have established certification-schemes decades after Presley launched his career.--Harout72 (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I will remind you, last year we had discussion 350m vs. 750m for Jackson and after consensus you also put (outdated even then) 300m source for Jackson but I didn't bother to question that partly because you also put outdated 300m figure for Elvis. Elvis didn't sold 600m records but I don't want to be a part of that discussion because wikipedia doesn't allow original research and to get real Elvis sales we need sales breakdown for every single, EP and album around the world and that is lots of original research. Also I will repeat again, vast majority of Michael Jackson (recent and past) sales weren't cetified and I have proved that dozen times and I can prove that again. Michael Jackson real sales (as a solo artist) is above 400m+ and I can prove that with detailed analyses with countless reliable sources (besides certifications) for every album and almost every single and video. That is more than 20 years of my free time work, collecting informations, books, magazines, charts etc. According to wikipedia rules that is original research and my hard work will be worth nothing. Unfortunately for wikipedia now outdated 350m or inflated 750m figure reported by CNN are worth more. Same goes for Elvis inflated 1 billion or 600m figures, or ABBA's 300m etc. Harout72, last year I spent lots of time in discussion with you regarding sales. Don't you remember our disputes regarding US certification-award-levels rules for singles released prior 1989, then our dispute regarding RIAA certification for digital singles, then swedish certifications etc. where I lost dozen hours in proving something that is truth. (Read for example this: Wrong and/or questionable certified sales figures!) Now I made very logical simple suggestion to remove outdated 300m figure for Jackson because we already have 350m figure and in that outdated 300m source there is sentence: He has sold more than 300 million records worldwide. So when you add 60m records sold since his dead + massive video sales + ringtones, mastertones etc. than 350m source is enough for now. You didn't have problem with removing outdated 300m figure (without discussion!) for Elvis but you don't allow deleting without doubt outdated 300m source for Jackson? Very interesting. So according to your original research Jackson (as a solo artist) sold way bellow 240 million records prior his dead?!?! At the end I will point out simple fact: many certification figures in this article aren't correct but I will not bother to correct them. All certification errors and your previous mistakes (which I have mentioned) etc. I will use as an irrefutable argument to prove (not now because I have too much work and not without help from administrators) that this article is based on your original research and regardless source and arguments you don't allow anyone who doesn't share your POV to do a single edit. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

All I have to say WOW, you really are in denial as most Jackon's fans are. I am not going to remove Jackson's 300 million because if we are going to remove the 300 million then we might as well remove the 750 million also because the latter is more incorrect than the former can ever be. I may not have all the certifications from every single market in the world for Jackson, but I assure you that I have 85-90% of the certifications that cover his sales, and yet his certified sales is an ocean apart from the 300 million figure. And don't be complaining about putting hours in discussions in the past, you are here once every six months doing nothing but criticizing my hard work. You don't even seem to realize what kind of time and effort I put in to keep this article honest, I have things to do of my own, but I'm not insulting others because it may sometimes take long time for some editors to understand things they're not familiar with. As for the certified sales, the only thing that needs to be corrected is Australia's certified sales as the platinum-award-level in Australia before 1989 was 50,000, and that's going to bring down Australia's certified sales for all artists including Jackason's. Anything else that you see that is wrong that perhaps needs a correction, bring it to my attention in a calm and friendly manner, do not shout at me. If you don't have anything normal to say to me or about my hard work, I suggest you to report to administrators about my work. And finally don't expect me to reply to your messages if you are going to behave this way.--Harout72 (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally think that we should not remove that claim. Let the readers prefer which figure is more suitable for him base on that three claims. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Last year, after consensus there was published source in this article for Elvis with 300m figure so why don't leave that source also and "Let the readers prefer which figure is more suitable for him base on that three claims."? Using original research method (forbidden by wikipedia) every not-biased independent researcher can prove that 300m figures for Elvis and Jackson are wrong (too low), and same goes for (too high) Jackson's inflated 750m or Elvis inflated 600m or 1 billion figures. Also for example, Madonna's 250m source is also outdated (too low) and I can prove that with detailed analyse, even weekly sales numbers for major part of her singles and albums around the world. (BTW it is not important but I am her fan from day one of her career, so that was one more reason for collecting all kind of informations about her and her sales for more than 25 years). At the end that is worth nothing on wikipedia because No original research. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I personally would vote to remove the 750 claim. I just find it unbelievable how someone could inflate sales to an almost triple level. Id say keep the 300 and 350 and REMOVE the 750.--PeterGriffin • Talk 23:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Harout72 all I have to say WOW. I will remind you once again that you were the person who put completely wrong figures for US certifications (here) and after my complaint about that you attacked me, insulted me but at the end after xy hours, days of discussion you realised that I was right and you and all your reliable friends were wrong and that is only ONE example of nonsense from your ORIGINAL RESEARCH which I corrected. Read again complete discussion (Wrong and/or questionable certified sales figures!), and now you are saying that I am here once every six months doing NOTHING but criticizing your hard work!?!?! I left this because regardless source and arguments you don't allow anyone who doesn't share your POV to do a single edit. Regarding known certified sales mentioned in this article I will repeat: this article was and still is full of wrong certification figures. Fact is that you can put whatever you want in it without discussion, even wrong calculations (certification figures) based on your original research. If I correct only 1 certification figure you will revert it, and if I bring wrong figures to your attention you will insult me at first (by default as you did last year in every our discussion) and then in the best case scenario after xy hours, days of discussion you will realize your mistake(s) and then you (I repeat YOU) will make an edit in article, so basically you act as an owner of this. I am not an idiot to bring to your attention your mistakes and then you will make an edit and take credit for my hard work and then after few months you will tell me that I am doing NOTHING but criticizing YOUR (?!) hard work. As I said before I am busy at the moment but in next few weeks (in worst case months) I will bring this issue to administrators attention and among others I will show that you are using certification figures - calculate figures (WP:OR) to discredit (delete from article) the numbers quoted in reliable sources but only for certain artists (I have big list of names). You are making decisions about what is reliable source, taking ownership of the article, and overriding verifiable facts with original research which is in most cases based on your completely wrong assumptions. --Z.K. HAL (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well you know what, it really doesn't matter what beef you have wiith Harout because we have a concensus here. 3 Editors disagree with you, so save your long discussions. We both back Harout's claims, so just knock it off.--PeterGriffin • Talk 00:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Z.K. Hal, I really hope you stop harping on the same thing once and for all. As I mentioned above, if you see there is something needs an attention, a certain market's certification, bring it to my attention properly. This kind of behavior is not helping me or you or anybody else here. By the way, all artists get the same treatment. And no, I'm not using certified sales to discredit claimed figures, but those claimed figures that are awfully inflated get discredited automatically once the certified sales are posted. In the end, certified sales don't lie but inflated claimed figures do. Those artists who've begun their career after 1980 especially, their certified sales and their claimed figures should not be as far apart as Jackson's 750 million and his available certified sales are, because developed markets have had certification-schemes since then, and developed markets are the ones generating 80-90% of record sales.

Of course you're free to bring the certified sales to the attention of any administrators, I'm not; however, sure if they will view it as Original Research. In fact, WP:OR does clearly state here: This policy allows routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources. And conversions of Gold/Platinum certification-awards is not OR as the links to award-levels to different time periods are included below the main table as "footnotes". WP:OR also states: The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. --Harout72 (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Bing Crosby?

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I miss Bing Crosby on this list. In his article, there is a mention of "half a billion records in circulation". This may have been mostly uncertified sales (as noted in the meager RIAA certifications note), but there must be some more info?--Paracel63 (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We've had number of discussions on Crosby in the past, you can find them in the archived discussion. Here is the link to one of the discussions. And I would not rely on the unsourced note at his wikipdia page (possibly posted by a fan), which supposedly explains as to why Crosby's certifications are almost non-existent.--Harout72 (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Rush at 50million

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Rock band Rush (Toronto Canada) have now surpasssed 50 million units of worldwide sales. The new documentary RUSH: Beyond the lighted Stage, released june 2010 state in fact the only the Beatles and The Rolling Stones have had more consecutive Gold or better albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngbowieorder (talk • contribs) 14:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I can't look at their Canadian certified sales due to Canada's certification-database being under construction at the moment, based on their US certified sales which is at 26 million (albums and videos combined) and some 820,000 from UK, it does look like they may have surpassed the 50 million mark. We'd need a highly reliable source, though, to put them up on the list. Let me know if you come across an article by a news service (preferably) mentioning the 50 million.--Harout72 (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And let's only count their album sales (LP, CD, cassette, 8-track, these will all count as records) and their single sales (CD single, 45's, 12 inch, cassingle, also counted as records). Let's not count their DVD or videocassette sales. Speaking in terms of fairness, it would not be consistent to count their DVD/video sales but not count DVD/video sales by other acts.

Ferdi Tayfur

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

| Ferdi Tayfur || Turkiye || 1967–present || Arabesk || 50-60 million[1] |- http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdi_Tayfur_%28m%C3%BCzisyen%29 http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrkiye_men%C5%9Feli_alb%C3%BCmlerin_sat%C4%B1%C5%9F_listesi Wikitürkçe (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Artists' sites cannot be regarded as reliable, and other language wikipedia articles should not be submitted as evidence for sales. Please refer to WP:RS--Harout72 (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Roxette

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I've found a Swedish language source which states 60 million sales, which seems more realistic than 70 million, after looking at the certifications. Norrköpings Tidningar newspaper source. Mattg82 (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

60 million for Roxette is certainly more logical. How reliable is that source? --Harout72 (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I've left a message on WP:RSN to see how reliable it is. Mattg82 (talk) 13:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
A second Swedish source from Göteborgs-Posten (another newspaper) which also says 60 million. Mattg82 (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the source as well as the estimated sales figure. As soon as we get a positive comment as to how reliable second source is, I will also include that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Harout72 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Mattg82 (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Namie Amuro

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Oricon reported this year that J-Pop singer Namie Amuro already sold 56.6 million copies since 1992. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.24.112.182 (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that the source you have provided above states that Amura has sold 56.6 albums, which seem rather illogical. I went over both RIAJ's "1 Million Seller Database" and also the "Gold/Platinum certification database" (which is from 2003 onwards), and I see total of 6,750,000 albums, 6,950,000 singles and 300,000 videos. I have to say that 56.6 million in album-sales only is simply inflated. Amura may have sold some 30-35 million records (Albums, SiIngles, Videos).--Harout72 (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, tha article says that namie has already sold 56.6 million copies since 1992. Amuro formely was part of the girlband Super Monkey's from 1992 to 1995, when she starts solo career. Probably this number includes Super Monkey's sales and her overseas sales, wich the sales is allowed by avex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.24.31.138 (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Amuro has not had any success in the western world, and if she's popular in other Asian markets besides Japan's market, those markets could not have generated enough sales to fill the gap that lies between what Japanese certified sales suggests and the 56.6 million as none (besides the Japanese market) is a decent size market. If we were to put Amuro up on the list, it would only have to be for the sales of her solo career, and so far there's no evidence that she's sold anywhere close to 50 million as a solo artist.--Harout72 (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Madonna's UK sales

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Are Madonna's certified sales in the UK including Who's That Girl and Evita?? Most worlwide certification database (including RIAA) credited both as Madonna album. Official book British Hit Singles & Albums also credits Madonna for that albums, although BPI website itself does not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.123.185.148 (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting point, since Evita doesn't come up when search is done with Madonna's name, I have to say that I have not included it. I only now did a separate search for Evita and came across that. But I can't find any results for Who's That Girl, although it should not be included in the certified sales at all, since at least 50% of the tracks on a soundtrack must be performed by the same artists in order to include it, and in the case of Who's That Girl only four tracks out of nine are performed by Madonna. But since I have already included it in the figures of other markets (at least those markets which have certified it which is only few), I'd be willing to include it in the UK's figure also. But, has it been certified by BPI? I can't find any certifications for that.--Harout72 (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey Harout. If you type "Who's That Girl" in the BPI searchable database, it should come up as Platinum. I've never checked the other one, but its a possibility.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 19:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any results for Who's That Girl. BPI's system won't accept any apostrophes, I checked it with or without it, and nothing. Whether with "Title" or "Keyword", nothing. I must be missing something, if you can find it.--Harout72 (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I put in that girl and selected title which found it. Mattg82 (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Got it, good job.--Harout72 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Iron Maiden over 100 million sales

Latest comment: 14 years ago51 comments8 people in discussion

To administrator of site datas: Maiden sold more than 80 mln albums, source http://www.ironmaiden.com/index.php?categoryid=8&p2_articleid=1253 - EMI states that during the 30 years period of collaboration, major label (EMI) sold more than 80 mln IM albums worldwide - that,s extremelly legal site-news from band's official www. Please, change the band's position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.147.116.31 (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Check these out:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/music/3110170/Iron-Maiden-frontman-on-keeping-it-real-after-35-years-at-the-top.html http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv-entertainment/music/2008/06/27/interview-iron-maiden-115875-20622203/ http://www.smh.com.au/news/gig-reviews/iron-maiden/2008/01/31/1201714134012.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanloop (talk • contribs) 09:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Especially the Sun source should be considered highly reliable as their current ranking in sales is based on an article of the same newspaper 2 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanloop (talk • contribs) 09:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Amanloop (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What I find especially shocking that these news services don't know when to stop printing outrageous figures. To show you what I mean let me present one simple example, The Sun had printed in October of 2008 that Iron Maiden had sold 70 million records (that is Albums, singles, videos), and now just 22 months later in August of 2010, The Sun has printed an obviously inflated figure of 100 million in album sales (only). How and where, one should ask, Iron Maiden have managed to sell over 30 million albums within a period of just 22 months? Especially when their certified sales from all markets which offer certification-databases comes up to some 16.5 million all together.
Iron Maiden have clearly not sold more than 70 million records and that is Albums, Singles, Videos combined, let alone Albums only. The 100 million printed by the news services is given to them by Iron Maiden's record company which is supposed to serve as a Marketing Tool possibly to promote their upcoming material. We should without any hesitation leave Iron Maiden where they are.--Harout72 (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
That's what you said back in February 2009 when I had also provided 3 sources of 100 million sales:
"I don't think the first two of the sources you are providing could be regarded as reliable as there is no a single indication who the authors are. I personally think the third one is only weakly reliable and we should only accept those sources for Iron Maiden that come from more prominent news services than The Sun (which is what we have supporting their sales figures at the moment). However, if you'd like, you could post this article published by Regina Leader-Post along with the article by The Sun at WP:RSN and ask the folks if Regina Leader-Post is more prominent news service than the The Sun. I personally, think The Sun is more recognized in the world than Regina Leader-Post, but if they feel stronger about the latter then I'll switch their places moving Iron Maiden into the bracket of 100-199 million.--Harout72 (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)"
There's clearly no continuity on what you say. Please make up your mind of what's reliable and what's not and what's to be accepted or not otherwise there's no point providing any sources if the main criteria is what you feel a band would've sold. You should know certified sales do not reflect the actual amount of records shipped to retail or purchased in digital form, otherwise almost none of the artists in the list should be there anyway. If certified sales is your pilot then move Iron Maiden to 10-20 millions sold and the other artists accordingly. Btw, EMI hypes Maiden at over 80 mill sold as that's the figure they've sold under their label, you can check Maiden's own site for that. So, no, it's not EMI that gives out the 100 mill number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.205.178.10 (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Amanloop (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
My mind is made up, and while I realize that the certified sales and the actual sales are not going to be the same, let me also emphasize that there should not be such a huge gap between the certified sales and the actuals sales for a band like Iron Maiden who have begun releasing records in 1980 when the most markets in the world did already have certification-schemes by then; therefore, unlike some other bands who began a lot earlier than that, Iron Maiden's records did get certified in all those markets, at least when they reached a certification-award-level. Frankly, even the 70 million is not realistic considering what Iron Maiden's certified sales looks like, but it's more bearable than the 100 million in album-sales only, which is outright outrageous. As I mentioned above, their record company is currently applying number of marketing tactics to promote their brand new material (The Final Frontier) and the inflated figure which makes Iron Maiden more impressive sales-wise is one of them. --Harout72 (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It's obvious your mind is made up, but that makes pointing out sources irrelevant as your mind is....well....made up. I realize it's not a discussion forum, so that's all from me on this, but I still find your methodology, if not incorrect, highly inconsistent. There should be some well-defined guidelines how things are arranged/counted and not by one's personal opinion/estimation - no personal offense intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.132.208.244 (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC) 91.132.208.244 (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Amanloop (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Well I disagree with you as well. While certifications may be off or not exact, they give a pretty basic understanding of what their levels would be. Hell, if their certifications were even half (50 million) I would agree. However, they aren't even close to that, they are a mere 15%. There is no way they can claim such sales.--PeterGriffin • Talk 21:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion (of course, who isn't). That still doesn't solve the very fact, the core of the problem, that your methodology is not correct and that's what causes all the friction in the discussion of this list. Take example of my Iron Maiden suggestion. If you say "bring me a good source and I'll move it to the X bracket" and then you find the source and the reply is "oh! that's outrageous!", it doesn't take a genius to know what's happening next. All I'm saying is, define some rules to build this list in an (as humanly possible) undisputed way that won't cause fights and out of hand arguments. Sorry for continuing this discussion, but I had to reply and make my point. Thanks! Amanloop (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind, Amanloop, that I and some other editors have worked hard to set some basic rules to follow and avoid inflations in sales figures which is quite often practiced by record companies. Therefore, since the last time you and I have had a discussion, my approach may seem a little different but I assure you that I am only doing what's best to have a proper list. And you can find those main guidelines that you're after at the top of this page in the box, The list is frequently edited in good faith; however, sales figures published by reliable sources may need to be verified with certification databases to avoid inflated figures. Artists without sufficient certifications to support published claimed figures may not be added to the list. Exceptions may be made in certain circumstances. I hope that clears things up for you a bit.--Harout72 (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, also check this as it is a reliable source as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/business/media/06maiden.html?_r=1Amanloop (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

85 million records stated by The New York Times is definitely more realistic than 100 million in albums sales (only) as claimed by some other reliable sources. However, I'd like to wait and see the number of certifications Iron Maiden is going to collect for The Final Frontier. Within the next few weeks or months, we should be able to see certifications popping up for their brand new material, and if it looks promising enough, I will replace the 70 million with 85 million (as stated by The New York Times), but for now, we should keep them where they are.--Harout72 (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, i read all the discussion about Iron Maiden sales and Harout, i know the number 85 million or 100 million may not seem too realistic for a band that has had almost no support from tv or radio, but you have no source that says "Iron maiden 100 million album sales doesn't seem to realistic for a band that doesn't have a lot of certifications in other countries", you do have sources that claim iron maiden's sales are about 75 million, but we should believe a news paper, or the official band website and their record company that has been since 1931, it's true that they have may inflated the numbers to 100 million (and there are bunch of other sources that claim this too), but it should be definitly moved to the 75 - section, another thing , is that EMI and Maiden's oficcial website only talk about album sales, not records, that's why there are a lot of pages saying "100 million records sold under emi", but that may be a maketing campain, but we shouldn' t believe the news sources because, they might have inflated album sales, but again we don't know every copy sold from every album, and I think you either, so the only thing we could do here is suppose, so what I suppose, is that (as we don't know the exact number of copies sold by every album), we should not be trusting every news paper claim about their sales, we shoud believe what it's more realistic, their record company and their website, because even if we believe the news paper claim, we don't know if they're giving the exact information or what they believe, and even if their record company is lying, we know that with bunch of certifications in other countries, iron maiden sales should be about 75, 80 or 100 million and putting the numbers of album sales in every country (according to the certifications) like you did, doesn't give you the exact information of sales worldwide (or even close), even if we do that with THRILLER (michael jackson) doesn't come even close to 50 or 65 or 100 million sales or Linkin Park' s "Hybrid Theory", even including big bands that, if you put the RECORDS sales (including albums, singles and dvd's) doesn't give you the exact number of sales in every country (including new bands like Linkin Park or Coldplay), that most of reliable sources (like news paper, official website and records company claim) give in millions, the least you could do is put the album sales about 80 million because we don't know their total of RECORDS sold (that it might be 100 million records worldwide like other sources claim).

--Deathmyname (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to say, but lot of what you have typed above is rather unclear. And, yes, the certifications are a solid way of determining whether or not the claimed figures are true. In other words, if a news service claims that a band has sold 100 million records, that means one would expect to see at least 50-60 million in certified sales. Having that said, we are not looking to find 90-100 million in certified sales when the claimed figure is 100 million. In the case of Iron Maiden, their certified sales are way below 20 million from above markets, which represent good 75% of all the global sales. So yes, 70 million in records (as claimed by The Sun is as logical as it can get for Iron Maiden.--Harout72 (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Are the certification figures really that much of a solid way of determining such things? Especially in the case of Iron Maiden? And over EMI's (their US record label) word? I'd say (1) EMI would have a far better idea of how many CDs/tapes/vinyl/etc they have pressed than an anti-piracy organization that outright hates Iron Maiden (for a number of reasons, one of which is their failure to jump on the "sue-em-all" bandwagon with Metallica even with attempts to pressure them to do so, and another is their refusal to request the vast majority of their shared music from being taken down, and yet another is the very public times they have told their fans to share their music with each other, or post videos of the concerts online). Even with the RIAA's biases aside, I'd still expect that EMI (and the subsequent press release from them) are a more reliable figure for sales (in the North American market) than the RIAA. And at 80 million via EMI, that leaves a lot of unaccounted for sales. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 02:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Related note: Unless the rules of that page have changed from what it states on it, the sections where I moved Iron Maiden to (and from) are "Estimated Sales" - not the "Certified Sales" section that is at the top. The requirements are two sources - I provided three.
Anyway, I think you are doing something wrong on your search. Try it THIS way: [8] - you will get more certifications than your previous search. The method I used (other than changing the number of results from 25 to 100 per page) is the exact same method used for Madonna for the "Certified Sales" section at the top. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 02:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. Robert, in the case of Iron Maiden, yes we can rely on certifications to determine and see whether the claimed figure by their record company is a true figure or is it just a figure tossed about to promote an upcoming material. And I say in the case of Iron Maiden, because by 1980s (and that's when Iron Maiden have begun releasing their records) certification schemes have already been established by most larger markets, see the establishment years here. Again, note that we are not looking to find 70 million in certified sales when the claimed figure itself is 70 million, we are only looking to find some 50-60% of the actual sales certified, and that's claerly not the case with Iron Maiden. Robert, you are right about EMI having far better idea than someone like me who simply is forced to depend on certifications, but the problem is that EMI is not going to announce the true figure to the fans of Iron Maiden as inflated figures always seem more attractive and impressive, which at the same time creates this urge within fans to go out and purchase the upcoming release of the band/artist without questioning whether or not the new record might really be as good. Inflated figures are a well practiced tool by record companies. While, what I'm stating may sound like an opinion, the certifications, on the other hand, never lie. And Iron Maiden doesn't have enough of it to suggest anything even close to 70 million, let alone 100 million. As for your suggestion on how to search, doing it this way or simply Videos and Albums separately, doesn't change the number of the certifications that come up. The certified sales, by the way, in the main table on the list, are all posted by me. I post them separately only on the discussion page to make it cleared and more detailed. --Harout72 (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hiya. First, my apologies if you thought I was implying that your knowledge was lacking (the "in comparison to EMI" part) - I was in no way attempting to imply that. I directly, without implication towards anyone else, meant the RIAA. I fully understand that your claims in this discussion are entirely based on the information you can find. As for the links, using the one I provided definitely comes up with a much larger listing (13 on your link, and 29 on my link). Nor does it include at least 4 more certifications for The Final Frontier, or numerous other worldwide certification numbers. Perhaps if I have time, I can dig them all up and make a table/list of them to see what that number ends up being. (and again, thanks for your patience) Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 02:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert, the Videos (16), and Albums (13), that is 29 together just as when you do a search for all certifications. And where in your search do you see that The Final Frontier has been certified? It has not been certified by RIAA yet.--Harout72 (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Using only the entries (of certification with citations) on Wikipedia, on the main listing of their certified sales, I've calculated that Iron Maiden has between 99.5 million and 198 million certified sales. In case one is wondering, that's the range discrepency in the certification levels themselves. Inotherwords, if Gold is over 500,000 (but under the 1 million platinum), then to get a Gold certification, one can have 500,000 to 999,999 sales. I don't have the time right now to go through each album right now to see if any certifications are missed... but by the certified numbers only (using the low end, ie: exactly 500,000 sales reached (and no more) for a gold cert), Iron Maiden is at 500,000 shy of 100 million - or inotherwords, 1/2 of a percent away from the 100 million mark. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 03:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm making an assumption. Question first: where can I find a listing of how much each other "certification cartel's" gold and platinum certs are for? My assumption is that they are the same figures the RIAA uses. Thanks, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 03:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for saying this, but your assumptions/calculations are terrible. I don't think you are at all familiar with certified sales or with the certification-award-levels. I don't need to make this sound aggressive but my calculations above are quite detailed. But if you'd like to give it a try, you can find the certification-award-levels for each market they can be found on the list here at the footnotes. I uploaded my own report that I have done on Iron Maiden's certified sales, if you're interested what the figures should look like for each album released in each market, then here it is.--Harout72 (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, my calculations are 100% correct. My assumptions (as I admitted) were incorrect. :-) That aside, it still brings us back to my earlier question, which hopefully you can answer, since you've taken ownership of this article: Unless the rules of that page have changed from what it states on it, the sections where I moved Iron Maiden to (and from) are '"Estimated Sales"' - not the "Certified Sales" section that is at the top. The requirements are two sources - I provided three. (which I guess was a violation of the "only two" rule)
That aside, your math may be wrong on some? Weren't US certs higher in 1989 and earlier? That would double a bunch of the US certs for various Iron Maiden albums. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 03:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

How are your calculations 100% correct? :) And I would very much appreciate it if you didn't assume anything like ownership of the article as nothing of that kind is happening here. Also, you might want to look at the top of this discussion page where it states: The list is frequently edited in good faith; however, sales figures published by reliable sources may need to be verified with certification databases to avoid inflated figures. Artists without sufficient certifications to support published claimed figures may not be added to the list. As you can see, I have worked on this page for a very long time along with some other editors, and relying on certifications is the best way to avoid filling this page with inflated figures. In the same vein, at the top of the list it states: Note: Although this list largely relies on claimed figures by highly reliable sources, some of the figures may need further examination to avoid inflated sales figures which is frequently practiced by record companies for promotional purposes. With regards to the RIAA's earlier certification-levels, before 1989 the certification-levels for singles were Gold=1,000,000, Platinum=2,000,000, for albums the levels were the same as they are now. By the way, your sources 1, 2, 3 are not acceptable for this list as all of the sources this page uses are highly reliable sources. And only one of your sources is weakly reliable, the 3rd one. Having said that, artists' official sites are not third party sources; therefore, they cannot be used. --Harout72 (talk) 04:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

My math (ie: calculations) were spot on. The problem is I used the RIAA numbers (ie: 500,000=gold, etc) for all - thus my assumptions were incorrect as I stated. That aside, as to the ownership part, for the section on estimated sales , 5 people are for using the citations given to raise Iron Maiden to the 75mil to 100mil mark - against two. Each of your posts indicates you, and your research, are the deciding factor, while dismissing the citations and rationale given. While it may not have been your intent for it to seem you've assumed ownership of the article, acting against consensus does make that implication. That being the case, I'd not let your actions speak against your intent.
As for your math, RIAA has NotB at Platinum or 2 million - you have it listed at 1 million. Same goes for others. Or I'm reading your information incorrectly (which is possible - it is late)
Anyway, I'll find better links for the citations if consensus isn't enough for you. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 04:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I have 5 other links: 4 are newspapers (with two different articles from the same paper, meaning 3 unique papers), and one is from premierguitar.com. Of them, one (The Examiner) is blocked, leaving two other papers, and premierguitar: [9], [10], [11] - would any of those suffice? If not, let me know... (and why not). There's also this one from 2008 that dubiously cites the 100 million figure ("fast approaching the..."): [12] Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 04:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You really don't have to provide sources here, that is not the issue here. The issue here is that Iron Maiden have not even sold 70 million records which is our current source states but it's more bearable than 100 million. 100 million in record sales is simply overblown. I'm not taking ownership here nor am I instructing anyone anything, both the discussion page and the list provide enough information for editors to know that sales figures here for this page are examined. Iron Maiden at RIAA site doesn't have singles certified, so I'm not sure what you mean by As for your math, RIAA has NotB at Platinum or 2 million - you have it listed at 1 million. Now if you still think I am being unfair and biased, you can simply report my actions and if administrators believe my detailed explanation is false, then I'll stand aside and let them move Iron Maiden into higher brackets. But that will, of course, violate WP:Consensus which I will not tolerate. I believe, I have put awful lot of time and effort in keeping this list honest; unfortunately, I don't think you appreciate that; therefore, you should try and get me stop editing this page as I'm sure that is what you are aiming at. By the way, those sources that claim 100 million in album sales only, should not even be looked at, we should only use sources that claim records, meaning albums, singles, videos. 100 million in album sales makes it even more unrealistic.--Harout72 (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

NotB is (the album, not single) "The Number of the Beast-LP 1,000,000" (per your document) which, per the RIAA went Platinum, which was, at the time of it's certification (1986) 2 million or more sales. There are various others as well.
Question, how does following the consensus in this discussion, namely 5 to 2 in favor of moving them to a higher bracket violate consensus? So, if you will not tolerate violating consensus, then myself, Dethmyname, Anon188., Amanloop, Anon91. equal 5 for moving them, while you and Nathan equal two - begging the question: should I then revert your revert of me to follow consensus? Or is there some portion of the conversation that is deleted or missing?
And finally, I tried indicating that not following that consensus gives the implication that you have assumed ownership, even though that was not your intent and I will assume good faith in believing that. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 05:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Additional Note: Since The Telegraph is a reliable source for Mariah Carey hitting over 200 million, then why is it not for Iron Maiden[13]? ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 05:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I have stated that the levels of the albums before 1989 were the same as now: Gold=500,000, Platinum=1,000,000, se this RIAA page please here. . It was the levels of the singles that were different.This page clearly explains that record sales are to be examined, and that is what I'm demonstrating here. And by reverting my edits, you will be in violation with what the top of this page states The list is frequently edited in good faith; however, sales figures published by reliable sources may need to be verified with certification databases to avoid inflated figures. I am not doing anything other than what is being suggested by the page. The certified sales suggest that Iron maiden have not sold more than 70 million records, and we have a highly reliable source currently supporting that claim.--Harout72 (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You've ignored the two major points in my previous post. (1) The consensus is for moving them. By reverting my edit, you were in violation of consensus and (2) if The UK Telegraph is a valid source for Mariah Carey, then why not for Iron Maiden?
Side note, what is suggested on this page doesnt supersede consensus (as you have), does it? And no I do not want you to stop editing that page - perhaps that may be your experience from the various AN/Is you have been pulled into. I simply wish to have this change abide by (1) consensus, and (2) the same standards for sourcing that have been used on other bands/musicians in this list such as Mariah Carey. ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 05:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And I'm not sure why you ask me this: if The UK Telegraph is a valid source for Mariah Carey, then why not for Iron Maiden? as I never said anything about Telegraph. I said, certified sales do not suggest anything over 70 million, and we have a reliable source for that currently. And what you mean by By reverting my edit, you were in violation of consensus? There has never been a consensus here, there have been edit-wars, but no consensus. I don't think there is anything more to say here. By the way, I have never been taken to ANI before for my record analysis. --Harout72 (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

First you claim that you are simply following the consensus of this discussion, then when I point out it's 5 to 2 against your decision, you claim there are only edit wars and no consensus? I am confused.
As for not saying anything about Telegraph, you did when you claimed none of the sources I provided were reliable - so I provided them - the same source used for the Mariah Carey claim. Not my fault you didnt look at the link when you claimed it wasn't reliable. Should we start an RfC? ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 06:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps everything I stated seems confusing to you because you only have one thing in your mind, and that is moving Iron Maiden into higher brackets regardless of whether they have or they have not sold as much as claimed. I initially, told you that the sources you provided were not reliable, I also made it very clear to you before even that, that the sources were not the issue here, the lack of certifications were. If you'd like to start a RFC, perhaps you should, because I don't think we understand each other at all, as you won't accept the fact that Iron maiden have not sold 100 million records. And for me, I have analyzed so many record sales in recent years that once I'm done with my analysis, I know rightaway whether the claimed figure is a true figure or a promotional figure. And in the case of Iron Maiden, it is a promotional figure. --Harout72 (talk) 06:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand you fine. I was politely trying to ask you why you backpedalled on your consensus comments and little speech on it, and why you are ignoring a source you deem reliable (found that discussion) for MC. I've already given you the benefit of doubt on your comments like "My mind is made up" and subsequent conversation that implied assuming ownership, but honestly, it is hard to have a discussion when at numerous points you cite (an opposing) consensus for your actions, then claim such didnt exist, then claim my sources are unreliable (with one being semi-reliable), then dismiss yet another source you deemed reliable for another artist. The only thing I am not sure of is, whether an RfC is the best route, or in light of all of that, an AN/I is. I'll request guidance from someone more experienced with such on this, including the option of simply letting things be. Actually, I'll ask them to review this and suggest a route - simply that - so any opinions they form or biases they form will be from reading this as opposed to my request. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 06:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, the figure from the Sun was first published over seven years ago (actually, the 80 million figure was published at least over 7 years ago). Since then, Iron Maiden has had 3 studio releases (DoD, AMOLAD and TFF), 2 live albums, 2 compilations, 5 video releases, and 5 World Tours (two of which were to push their back catalog - all of which sold out roughly 90% of the shows, including the "Somewhere Back In Time World Tour" which sold about 2.5 million tickets). With all of that, perhaps that explains how in over seven years, they sold another 20 million albums? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 07:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And I politely explained to you that there has never been a consensus on moving Iron Maiden into higher brackets. We gain consensus here by examining the record sales with certified sales, and this can be seen in almost all discussions. I am not sure why that seemed as though I was backing away from my own suggestion. I'm also not sure what discussion you keep referring to by Mariah Carey and Telegraph. I personally think that we need a third opinion here, and it must come from someone who's familiar with how the music industry is being operated. Perhaps, we could ask Kww, who often edits music industry related articles.--Harout72 (talk) 07:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read my last post above and let me know if that helps with your other issue. As for the consensus part, you most definitely did make such a statement: "then I'll stand aside and let them move Iron Maiden into higher brackets. But that will, of course, violate WP:Consensus which I will not tolerate." - and this discussion opened on Aug 26, 2010...
But let's skip that. If that's not your current rationale, or wasnt intended to be, fine. It's late, and you quite possibly could have been intending something else when you typed that.
I've made an additional point above which will hopefully alleviate your earlier concern about the jump in sales - since it was a 7+ year period, and only 20 million (with the events I listed taking place during that time) as opposed to a 30 million jump in two years. And in this, with 7 editors already involved, I am not sure how one more would help - I'd be more for an RfC... if 7 aren't enough, then 8 wont be either. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 07:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
My apologies. My above information is incorrect. I've found citations for the 80 million figure from Feb 2001. Here are the new stats, that will hopefully explain the 20 million in sales in almost 10 years.
Since then, Iron Maiden has had 3 studio releases (DoD, AMOLAD and TFF) with BNW being out for under a year, 6 live albums, 3 compilations, 5 video releases, and 6 World Tours (two of which were to push their back catalog - all of which sold out roughly 90% of the shows, including the "Somewhere Back In Time World Tour" which sold about 2.5 million tickets). With all of that, perhaps that explains how in almost ten years, they sold another 20 million albums? (and I am skipping singles, box sets and extended plays).
If you are willing to allow 50 million in the preceding 20 years (1980-2000), then surely 20 million more in ten years, from albums that have literally crushed any of their past endeavors, doesnt seem absurd at all - it actually makes a lot of sense.
Best, ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 07:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Now let's read this here together, and I have posted this here in this very discussion at the top, in the beginning, The Sun had printed in October of 2008 that Iron Maiden had sold 70 million records (that is Albums, singles, videos), and now just 22 months later in August of 2010 The Sun has printed an obviously inflated figure of 100 million in album sales (only). Now you tell me if you can make heads from tales. I hope you see now, why we need to analyze record sales. I honestly do not know what more I can say here, it's quite late and all I can say that I stand firm by what I've been saying throughout this discussion, Iron Maiden could not have sold 100 million records, and that is my final statement. It's up to you now, if you want RFC or third opinion.--Harout72 (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I read that. The Sun, as I stated above, used a very outdated figure (from before Brave New World's release). Simply using Google Search for the 80 million (or 70 million) figure and setting a date range will prove it. And 20 million in 10 years is not a lot.
So, back to the consensus thing... this conversation has been ongoing since August. One additional person will not change the consensus (at worst, 5 to 3 - at best 6 to 2). So, if you truly wish to get one more person involved, then we can simply skip that step and move them to a higher bracket. Or do an RfC (or AN/I, but I dont think that's warranted, do you? I only mention it because you first brought it up). So... which route do you prefer? Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 07:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't have my consensus to move Iron Maiden into a higher bracket. Therefore, it's up to you, I have provided detailed sourced explanation throughout this entire discussion as to why I think Iron Maiden could not have sold 100 million records. I don't know why you believe that getting the third person involved is necessarily going to get Iron Maiden moved upwards on the list. We definitely, need a third opinion here as we've been getting nowehere. If you'd like, I could ask Kevin (Kww) to state his opinion on here.--Harout72 (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we're both tired? I debunked your 30 million in two years claim by pointing out it was 20 million in 10 years (and that the Sun was citing an older figure). Also, what you think doesnt trump consensus - nor is it consensus. It's not "you and I" - it's 7 editors (even if you scared the others away with your statements that implied ownership of the article) - which is why getting one more editor involved wont change that... at best 5 to 3 for moving Iron Maiden. Thus, getting Kww to state his opinion wont change the consensus, leaving the consensus at moving them up. Additionally, your vote isn't your consensus... maybe we're tired, because once again, your wording seems claiming ownership by dismissing the consensus of seven editors as irrelevant to your single vote as the consensus ("my consensus"? you arent a consensus). So, if you are insistent about getting Kww invovled as the answer, then we can skip wasting his time, as the vote will be 5 to 3 or 6 to 2 - in either event, in favor of moving Iron Maiden up. So... should we move it up, start an RfC, or start an AN/I? ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 07:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You obviously don't know how the consensus work, it's not more votes against fewer votes, you might want to refer to WP:Consensus. We all have to come to a single understanding by discussing the issues at hand. I have already provided a very logical and detailed explanation as to why Iron Maiden has not sold 100 million records, all of which you have ignored including my own detailed analysis. I have said it before and I'll say it again, this page informs editors that claimed figures may need to be examined through certifications; in other words, I'm not demonstrating here something that has not been said. The Sun had not printed an outdated figure in 2008, The Sun's claim is a realistic figure at 70 million. And when I said the third opinion, I meant someone who understands the music industry, and most of those editors you keep speaking of are not well educated about how record sales are operated, and the third opinion would help you and others see it perhaps more clearly. As I stated earlier, I stand firm by what I've been stating; therefore, you may turn this to either AN/I or Rfc, your choice. --Harout72 (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I realize what a consensus is, but it's hard to consider you a part of that process, since you claim we are bound by the "rules" (sorry, they are not rules. Guidelines perhaps) that you helped create - while skipping over the "exceptions/discussion" portion.
And while you stand by your vast understanding of the music industry, please use that knowledge to explain this: why is it that Iron Maiden managed gold and platinum certifications on cassette tapes in only a couple years of release - yet in twenty five more years of the CD releases, they haven't managed an additional 500K or 1M? Do you really believe those numbers are valid? As for what their label does or reports... (something you mentioned above), you do realize that technically, EMI acts as Iron Maiden's publisher, while they have their own management company and own company formed to own their sound recordings? But that's a bit unrelated I guess.
Interesting side note. Since Iron Maiden told the music cartel to "F" off when they were asked to join the lawsuit (along with Metallica, who did) against Napster and fans, Iron Maiden has not received a single certification in the US. Even when albums like AMOLAD were far better received in this country than ALL of their previous albums combined - and their FIRST top ten album in the states (and TFF crushes even that, with 40 Top 1 spots (28 of which were earned on release)).
That further supports how not-odd the sales figures are. But if that isn't enough, then perhaps the fact that TFF sold over 800,000 copies [14] in it's first week is indicative of just how much larger their sales are than the RIAA reports (is the NYT a reliable source, since The Telegraph no longer seems to be?). Of course, the truth is, the RIAA hasnt reported... anything... in years on Iron Maiden).
ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 00:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Look I don't mean to offend you but you're not even aware that RIAA is the certifying association for US only, having said that, this statement by The New York Times By the end of last week, more than 800,000 copies of “The Final Frontier” had been shipped to retailers around the world, said Rod Smallwood, Iron Maiden’s longtime manager talks about worldwide shipment not the US shipment only, and 800,000 units are not going to make a big difference when we are dealing with over 50 million units missing out of the claimed 100 million records. And I never said that the Telegraph is not a reliable source, I'm simply against the claim figure that they use within their article. I'll tell you what, let's do this, since I'm against the 100 million in sales and you are against the continued use of the 70 million, why don't we update Iron Maiden's sales figure by taking it up to 85 million in sales as claimed by The New York Times. I think that's a fair suggestion, and I think you kind of were suggesting that too above, correct?--Harout72 (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Um wow, if the two of us weren't so excessively verbose (of which, yes, I am faaaaar more guilty of), I suspect we'd have made our points in much shorter form and come to the same agreement a lot sooner. Will you or shall I? Side note though, I've been aware the RIAA is the US only cert body... my mistake was assuming every such body had standardized on numbers for each cert. Ya live and learn, and I am always grateful when I manage to learn something new (in this particular case, thank you for that). Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 02:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  Done. I updated the sales figure. I think it's time to archive this page :).--Harout72 (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
OK... though I just sent Nathan a note to see if he was OK with our compromise, since he was the other dissenting vote for moving them up. I should have thought about that before posting my response. :-( ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 02:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope 85 million suits everyone, because 100 million is something I can't even glance at with only that much in certified sales. Anyways, hope The Frontal Frontier sells a lot more than it already has so it will narrow down the gap between the claimed figure and their certified sales. Cheers.--Harout72 (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, wow this lengthy discussion has me confused. But I see no problem with the result. Good work guys! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Black Sabbath

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

They've sold over 100 million albums, not 50 million records, besides in you source from FOX news it says: "in the '70s, with Black Sabbath, you sold more than 50 million records" like they sold 50 million in the 70s and after that it says "Then in the '80s", it might be saying that they had only sold 50 when they were in the seventies, also your source is talking about sales when Ozzy Osbourne was in the band only and it doesn't say the total sales by 2007 when it was published. I have source from BBC News that says that by 2009 they've sold over 100 million albums since their fromation in 1968. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8075397.stm --Dethmyname (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2010

Black Sabbath's US certified sales is at 15,000,000 in certified-album-sales and 150,000 in certified-video-sales, but outside of the US, their sales seems to have been rather weak. I don't see any certified sales for Black Sabbath coming from most markets in the world which have begun certifying records since early '70s, this includes Germany, France, these two are large markets in Europe none of which has a single evidence of strong sales for Black Sabbath. The Dutch market which is a medium sized market doesn't have a single certification either, and they have begun certifying records since 1978. Finland, too, which has established its certification-scheme in 1971, doesn't have a single certification for Black Sabbath. I can't look at Canada's certifications as their database is currently under construction. The UK sales doesn't appear to be very appealing either, I see only 600,000 in certified sales, and they have been certifying records since '73. So all in all, Black Sabbath may have sold some 100 million records, meaning Albums, Singles and Videos, but having sold 100 million albums (only) seems unrealistic considering that they have had a notable impact in the US only. If there is a highly reliable source which uses the term Records rather than Albums, in other words, if a source claims that Black Sabbath have sold 100 million records (not just Albums), I'd be willing to update their source as well as their estimated sales.--Harout72 (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok First of all you have plenty of musician in your 100-199 list, that don't even have a single certification, even if they were from the 50's, second most of the sources like the BBC, mtv and others says that they've sold 100 million albums, so i don't know why you shoudn't believe this when i'm giving you a highly reliable source from 2009 by the BBC. Many of bands sold albums by other labels in different countries, so that may seem like a problem for the recording industries to qualify the album sales, besides when you wrote about the large european market, you have also put in your list artist like Barry White, The Carpenters, Dolly Parton etc.. and other musicians like theme from the 70's or 60's that have one certification of gold in one or two countries or no certifications. Black Sabbath also sold cassettes like many of these artist, and that also may seem difficult for the recording companies to verify all the total albums, cd's, or cassettes sales. --Dethmyname (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll answer your questions in several parts. 1) We don't have any artists with no certifications within the 100-199 section with an exception of A. R. Rahman who's from India the population of which is 1.8 billion. However, he is being considered for deletion from the list. 2) The reason why I don't believe every sales-claim that I read is because record companies inflate sales figures for promotional reasons quite often; therefore, we need to examine some (if not all) printed claimed-figures to avoid filing this list with inflated figures; therefore, putting certifications into work is a solid way of determining whether or not the figures are true. 3) I'm not sure what you mean with this statement Many of bands sold albums by other labels in different countries, so that may seem like a problem for the recording industries to qualify the album sales. 4) With regards to Barry White's European markets' certified sales, just from UK he has 2.6 million in certified sales, and from France he has 1.1 million in certified album-sales. Barry White has certified sales for other European markets as well, but I just wanted to show you two, and his US certified sales is at 16.5 million. 5) The Capenters too, from UK, a total of 5.1 million in certified sales, and from Germany 250,000 in certified sales, again I wanted to show you only two European markets, there is more, however. 6) Music associations certify records regardless of the Record Format, whether released on Cassette or Vinyl or CD, each sold unit is counted towards the certification-level by music associations and certified. 7) As for Black Sabbath, they don't have a single certification from France nor from Germany, just some 600,000 certified units from UK; however, I'm willing to update their source and the estimated sales if you could locate a source that uses the term Records instead of Albums only. I think what I'm asking here is quite logical as their sales has not been notable enough anywhere outside of the US.--Harout72 (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Tina Turner's claimed figure

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

It was brought to my attention by Petergriffin that Tina Turner doesn't have enough certifications to support her so called 180 million in record-sales. I went over Tina Turner's available certifications, and as pointed out by Petergriffin correctly, Turner truly doesn't have enough certification which one would expect to see for a figure like 180 million. Here are the certifications:

Above, we have 5,014,000 in certified singles-sales (French actual-sales is included), 27,649,694 in certified album-sales (French actual-sales is included), and 310,000 in certified videos-sales. Total of 32,973,694, and that clearly would not turn into anything huge, even if we had the Australian certified sales (the database of which starts from 1997) and the Japanese certified sales (the database of which starts from 2003). Having said that, I believe it's clear that Tina Turner could no have sold 180 million records as claimed by our currently provided two sources. Therefore, we should look for reliable sources (preferably with recent dates) which claim much lower record sales for Turner as I'm quite sure her actual sales should not be anywhere beyond 100 or 120 million maximum based on what her available certifications suggest. --Harout72 (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Mail claims 75 million albums which ties in with a figure of 100m overall, I can't seem to find a source for that though. Mattg82 (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything lower either that represent her entire record sales, not just albums. Oh well, I guess we'll have to live with the 180 million in record sales, because removing Tina from the list will not be fair.--Harout72 (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm going to look for other sources. Let's hope I find something. I don't know Harout, I think its more fair to remoove her, than to have those rediculous figures.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 00:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Harout, so I have some sources that list sales of 100 million records. The first one is the official web site for the Oprah Winfrey Show. As we said, they probably inflate, like by Lopez and American Idol, but if they list 100 million, shes probably even less. Anyway, its worth a shot! So here is the source for Oprah Winfrey Show official website. This Daily Mail lists 75 million albums. Thats all I got so far :(.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 07:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen the second one already as Mattg82 posted that here above a few days ago, but it only speaks of album sales (not records), it's not very useful. As for Oprah, I would not consider it very reliable, at least not for a list like ours which is strictly supported by prestigious news services for the most part. But 100 million (singles, albums, videos combined) is correct for Tina. I hope we find something reliable.--Harout72 (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

People Magazine said that Tina Turner has sold more than 80 million records worldwide. Although this article was posted on December 04, 2000, I'm really sure that her record sales do not increase significantly since. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've found a German publication saying 100 mil. Mattg82 (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  Done. I have replaced both former sources with the one Mattg82 located since it's best to use a publication by a new service. Good job.--Harout72 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Whitney Houston, Tina Turner

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Has Tina Turner really outsold Whitney Houston? Whitney is circling in on 3 diamond albums in the U.S. alone: "The Bodyguard" (diamond), "Whitney Houston" (diamond), and "Whitney" (almost diamond) at 9 million, but no doubtly will be diamond at 10 million soon enough. Worldwide for these albums: "The Bodyguard" has sold 44 million, "Whitney Houston" 25 million, and "Whitney" 20 million. I think Tina's best selling album, "Private Dancer" (which I like), is at 20 million worldwide. That's on par with Whitney Houston's third best selling mega-album. And once you factor in Whitney's other huge sellers: "I'm Your Baby Tonight" (12 million); "The Greatest Hits" (10 million); "Your Love Is My Love" (10 million)"; the gospel album "The Preacher's Wife" (6 million); plus several greatest hits albums released outside the US and "I Look To You". Also, the album "Just Whitney" outsold Tina's albums like "Twenty Four Seven" and "Wildest Dreams". Then there's Whitney's singles, which there have been a trillion high selling ones, and need we mention the sales of "I Will Always Love You"? I like Tina so this is nothing against her, but I find it hard to believe she has outsold Whitney Houston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I brought up this point already. You are 100% right. Tina has probably not even sold half of Whitney. However, we don't have reliable sources that claim anything lower than 180. Her real sales should really be at like 75-90 million, but I haven't been able to find a source to replace it. If you find one (reliable) I would support you 100%.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your reply. This may be pretty long so please forgive me. I have looked around and, yeah, you are correct, not too much out there mentioning Tina Turner's actual album sales. The websites I looked at that did mention her album sales, had her total worldwide sales at 55-60 million. This actually sounds about right. I now believe my original statement of "Private Dancer" selling 20 million worldwide, which is under Wikipedia's "List of best-selling albums worldwide", is incorrect. Several websites I looked at put the worldwide sales of that album at 11-12 million. This would make sense because at the website RIAA.com (the official organization for US album sales), they have "Private Dancer" at 5x platinum in the US (5 million sold). That would mean she would have had to sell another 15 million in the rest of the world for that album to be at 20 million, which isn't likely. But selling another 5-6 million in the rest of the world seems very likely. This album is probably indeed at 11 million total sales worldwide; and this is Tina's best selling album, so not nearly likely she's at 180 million album and single sales.

Tina Turner's sales listed at 180 million needs to be changed. She has not sold more than Whitney, Barbara Streisand, Frank Sinatra, Carlos Santana, Gloria Estefan, and many others on the list she is ahead of. If this "reliable source" is stating the sales of Tina's albums and singles are at 180 million, then it needs to be deemed an "unreliable source" because anyone who keeps up with music knows she has not sold that many albums. This casts credibility questions over the whole article. It makes readers who know these Tina Turner statistics are not correct think: "Well if this is wrong, what else in the article is wrong"? And for readers who Do Not keep up with sales, they may read this and think Tina has outsold all these other acts. This isn't fair to those other acts who have achieved higher sales and deserved to be ranked accurately on the list.

Now of course, mistakes happen, errors get in some articles. But this isn't one of those situations. The correct course of action in this instance would be to leave Turner off the list entirely since she, her management, and/or record companies will not release any information and/or accurate information on her sales statistics, as opposed to rewarding them for this behavior, and placing her above several artists she has obviously not outsold. A compromise may be to do something like this:


Tina Turner United States 1955–present Rock and roll, pop 70 million*

-then at the bottom of the entire list in small print put-

  • (actual estimated sales)


This would keep Tina on the list and it would be fair. She should be placed under the 50-74 million category. The website IMDB.com (which may be the most accurate out of what is out there) lists her album only sales at 60 million. The site vanityedge.com lists her sales at 55 million, and this site makes a point of saying not to believe any website that lists Tina Turner sales at numbers like 100 million and over because they are not true, they are being inflated. However, this is not an official site, but notice the numbers are in the same range. Again, sorry for the long novel.

P.S. With album sales the way they are in this day and age, I also do not believe Lady Gaga has sold over 64 million albums and singles already, while Britney Spears (who debuted in 1999) is at 100 million, with Gaga on her tail. Britney's number seems accurate, Gaga's doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's normally not a good idea to suggest to remove one artist from the list because it may not seem fair to other artists. That's not how we're supposed to operate here. In other words, we should not turn this list into competition between artists. No doubt about the fact that Turner's sales figure is inflated, but removing someone like Turner, who happens to have 33 million in certified sales (see the discussion above) is already reason enough to patiently look for sources which claim lower record sales. And please, let's discuss one artist at a time, and not start comparing Lady Gaga's sales to Britney Spears' (a lot of sales of the former have yet to be certified as she's selling her records in an extraordinary pace). Lastly, we should only concentrate on keeping those artist off this list, whose certified sales don't even represent 20% of their claimed figures, and they are Bing Crosby and Cliff Richard. And A.R. Rahman is next to be removed. By the way, IMDB.com and vanityedge.com are not reliable sources for us to use here.--Harout72 (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally agree, vanityedge.com is not a reliable source (although what they say about Tina's sales may be true); and IMDB.com is kinda up-in-the-air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga Open discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This discussion will validate a lot of mistakes and misunderstanding surrounded this list. The discussion can not be close until further research and debate

i just make this statement ..."the current reference does mention 15 million sales and 40 million singles, its a pretty big error sum these completely different concepts. an album is an album and single are single i dont think i have to explain this concept far beyond, i think it was a mistake from the wiki guys let this thing slide over this list, watch out guys and read every reference people posted because some of them think with their fan heart rather that real facts that disillusioned the truth to other users. regards"... harout i'm not quite sure if you are the wiki administrator for this list but let me tell you this whole list lack of facts and that is because people are posting things of doubtless sources and even doing non-sense things like summing singles and albums, if that is the way this list is running the whole list is completely wrong!!, its like summing apples with watermelons, i dont think toyota calculates their car sells by summing cars sold with engines and tires. common sense please. i think lady gaga its the clear example of what people is doing with this list, how it is possible lady gaga with just one album (dont get me wrong its pretty good) has the same sells as red hot chilli peppers, motley crue and other artist that has been there for over 30 years? its important understand the value of wikipedia on the web, many web pages artist-bios extracts their info from wikipedia so if you said iron maiden has sold over 100 million records many band bios are going to copy this information which later are going to be use as reference for that particular statement. many magazines pull info. from wiki to get their notes, have you notice the first link of source its always wikipedia? i can not imagine iron maiden selling more than 100 million records, if you go album by album the sum does not match, even having not any riaa, ifpi or soundcan certification for any of their albums... im trying to put iron maiden as an example, same happened with gaga. wikipedia is starting to get a huge amount of incredibility and that is because the lacking of sources and administration, its a shame because the idea of wikipedia is great but someone need to control it. --Therein8383 (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

aha how come Lady Gaga has sold 40 million singles and she is not even appeared any of their singles or sum of them on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_singles_worldwide ... I think we should take a look to that source buddy.--Therein8383 (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Enrique Iglesias

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

According to this article he has sold almost 55 million copies. http://www.universalmusica.com/enriqueiglesias/News/1924--189.217.76.147 (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to find 3rd party reliable sources and not artist's own or record label websites. Thanks. Mattg82 (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest against adding Enrique Iglesias to the list even if a reliable source is located. The certified sales for Iglesias clearly doesn't suggest anything even remotely close to 40 million let alone 55 million. Below is all the available certified sales:

Also, IFPI (Europe), for the entire European continent has 2,000,000 posted for Enrique and 2,000,000 for Escape, but of course the figures already found in European associations respectively must be deducted from IFPI (Europe)'s figures (which represent European certified sales in whole) to avoid double counting. This is done in order to see the remaining figures which come from certain European markets which don't offer certification-databases, (Italy for example), it's also done to cover the remaining sales-figures of those records in available market's databases which lie between the first and the second platinum-award (for example). The remaining figures for Enrique is 1,350,000, and for Escape is 265,000. And adding those album-figures to the top of those album-figures posted above is 13,730,000 in certified-album-sales. And singles-certified-sales is 2,425,000. Iglesias' total-actual-sales would never reach 40-45 million records even if we had sales coming from all markets in the world. And above, we have all those markets which cover 75-80% of the global sales.--Harout72 (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera WITH refs

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Hello. I am a big fan of Christina Aguilera and I thought it didn't give her justice by not having her on the list so here are the figures:

Albums - 42 -> 43 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2010/01/hot-property-christina-aguileras-home-pops-back-on-the-market.html http://www.askmen.com/specials/2009_top_99/christina-aguilera-35.html http://www.popcrunch.com/the-popcrunch-100-hottest-women-of-2009-80-61/ http://music.msn.com/music/features/christina-aguilera/?GT1=28129&silentchk=1&

Singles (in america ONLY) http://www.billboard.com/#/column/chartbeat/ask-billboard-how-tik-tok-winds-up-at-no-1004054542.story 3,351,000 physical singles and 8,603,000 digital tracks.

She has sold at least 54 million and should be on the list. Thanks for your time. CheezeDoodles (talk) 00:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry, but non of your sources are reliable. Blogs and such cannot support these figures. If you provide another source that states "albums" I would gladly add the two as you asked and agree. But your sources aren't concrete, the only one that is even ok is MSN.--PeterGriffin • Talk 00:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be careful when reading and believing those 42-43 million in album-sales for Aguilera. While, I believe her total record-sales (Albums, Singles, Videos combined) could reach the neighborhood of 40 or 42 million, I'm quite skeptical about as to whether Aguilera's worldwide albums-sales could come close to even 35 million. Let me just post her certified sales below, so we all can agree with each other.

I could post some more markets, but really, they won't make much difference, these are all the markets one should look at when analyzing record-sales (and Japan's too which I suspect is not even some 1 million records). And I think our answer here based on the certified-sales is pretty self explanatory. I personally would not put Aguilera on the list with a source that mentions albums-sales only. Let's make sure it's source that speaks of Aguilera's all records, and the figure in this case, should not surpass the 50 million mark.--Harout72 (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure about the user above but I did find 3 more sources http://www.last.fm/music/Christina+Aguilera http://showbiz.sky.com/xtinas-rise-to-the-top http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/b202beb7-99bd-47e7-8b72-195c8d72ebdd They are a radio station and two tv channels. Coupled with the MSN one I think its pretty solid. I dont want to get into a big fight about this but I think your wrong with alot of your figures. I mean Billboard said 12 million singles in US alone. Not to mention that Stripped sold almost 2000000 in UK. Plus a gold and two platinum album equals alot more than 2000000 Thanks CheezeDoodles (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

CheezeDoodles, the BBC source is not a real BBC page, it is a wikipedia mirror, see where it says at the bottom From Wikipedia. And the first two sources are not reliable. By the way, if you don't want to get into a big fight, then you should familiarize yourself with certification-award-levels for each market posted above and not state that my figures are wrong. Also, you might want to look at this here as it states that Aguilera's US actual-album-sales is 16.4 million which is not far from her RIAA certified-album-sales. --Harout72 (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Harout72, thanks for replying! I'm sorry if I insulted you and I understand certification fully. However, certification for gold aren't always 500,000 - they could be 999,000 or just 500,000. Even assuming that all of Christina's singles are just 1,000,000 for platinum ect. she still would have at least 6 million certified singles in US so that is why I said your figures were wrong. I used Billboard for the singles because it took into account all sales not just certs (just because Dirrty isn't cerfied doesn't mean it sold nothing!). Also please don't be so condescending with me. I didn't notice the From Wikipedia at the bottom of the BBC page (and if its from wikipedia's page for Christina wouldn't the links references the 42 million albums be acceptable for this page if its acceptable for hers?) Also if the other two aren't reliable what kind of websites are? In the UK Sky is bigger than BBC.

Thanks for your time CheezeDoodles (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, records received Gold-certification-awards could fall somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 (for RIAA), but let's face it, Aguilera is not an artist who's released awful lot of records throughout the years, meaning we should not be worried too much about the units that cannot be seen due to not having reached the next certification-award-level. In Other words, as you can see, Aguilera's total-certified-album-sales from RIAA comes to 15.2 million, whereas her US actual-album-sales is at 16.4 per this article. Had she released countless materials over the years, her actual-sales would not have been as close to her certified-sales as it is. By the way, no offense, but I don't think you are entirely familiar with RIAA's certification-award-levels. That said, both "Fighter" and "Beautiful" have been certified as Gold-digital-singles for selling over 100,000 respectively. Digital-award-levels for singles were launched in July 2004 at Gold=100,000 and Platinum=200,000. The levels for Digital-award remained at those levels until September 2006, from then on, the levels were brought up to match with levels of both Standard-Format and Master-Ringtone-format as the demand for digital-downloads grew high. As for Sky, I doubt that it's regarded more reliable than BBC, but definetely, it does state a very logical figure for Aguilera, 42 million records (that is albums, singles, videos not just albums). As for this source, which you confused with the real BBC page, I'm not sure where it's being used but it needs to be immediately removed.--Harout72 (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh its not being used as a reference anywhere, what I meant was on the christina aguilera wikipedia page it states 42 million album sales and I tried to use the references for this page but they weren't reliable enough. Also was Beautiful and Fighter only Digital Gold? They were also physically released, I thought they were gold on physical standards.

Also I have have found this page: http://prince.org/msg/8/304825 I know its not reliable but it claims its from Billboard and seeing as its on a Prince fan-site it wouldn't have any reason to change the figures for Christina Aguilera (It is also on other forums and fansites). So with the 15,700,000 and 11,300,000 for Christina Aguilera and Stripped respectivly, 42 million sounds a bit more plausable. Also I believe Back to Basics has sold 4.6 million worldwide. Keeps Gettin' Better: A decade of hits sold about million worldwide. Just Be Free (demo) sold 120,000 in US . Mi Reflejo 5 million worldwide. Also My Kind Of Christmas sold 1 million in US.So with all that added up it comes to 38720000. I understand that theres no way its going on the page with no sources so I'll find the references for these and the offical Billboard article and post it on the the talk page. Thanks for your help. CheezeDoodles (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Every record (Albums, Singles) with an exception of some 2-5% of the records are available in all formats, Digital, Standard and Master Ringtone. The singles " Fighter" and "Beautiful" were released, I'm sure, in Standard-format; however, since the Digital-format was already available in 2006, consumers seems to have preferred the latter over the Standard. And the Standard-format of those singles may have sold too, but while the Standard-format requires to sell 500,000 for Gold, the Digital-Format of those singles got certified Gold for selling 100,000, since that was the requirement for Digital-Gold between July 2004 and September 2006. And no, this is not a reliable source, and the figures within, in the same vein, should not be used for any purpose. And I would not fall for the written Billboard Magazine, it's probably just tossed in there to make it more believable. As far as individual figures for albums or singles go, you should only rely on figures coming directly from Billboard site or Chart Watch on Yahoo which are based strictly on Nielsen Soundscan. In order not to make this discussion any longer than this, I suggest this: if you come across a highly reliable source (a News Service preferably) such as CNN, Fox News, BBC etc., which claims 50 million records (not just albums) for Aguilera, bring it to my attention and we'll add her to the list. Her true actual sales should not surpass the 50 million figure.--Harout72 (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes I thought it was risky. Also Fighter and Beautiful were released in 2003 so people must have started downloading it once it became available. Thanks for all your help. CheezeDoodles (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


I think we may have found a RELIABLE source. Her own labels website! Her own label released on their website she has sold over 46 million albums worldwide: http://www.rcamusicgroup.com/news/christina-aguilera-perform-american-music-awards this is not including any of her singles sales which would quite easily bounce her up to the 60 million mark including US single sales alone. She should quite clearly be on the list.219.89.129.156 (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Duran Duran

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

HI, i have recently seen from several sources (including the Duran Duran website, a few online magazine articles and a BBC Top of the Pops Duran Duran episode) saying that they have sold over 100 million albums, but are still in the 50-75 million category, could you please tell me why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richiewiki (talk • contribs) 18:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Please allow some time for me go over Duran Duran's available certifications, from which I'll be able to tell whether or not they may have sold over 70 million records.--Harout72 (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that Duran Duran may have or may have not sold 70 million records based on what their available certifications suggest. They actually do not have certifications in numerous markets including Austria (the database of which starts from 1990), Switzerland (the database of which starts from 1989), Sweden (the database of which starts from 1987), Poland (the database of which starts from 1995), Norway (the database of which starts from 1993), Australia (the database of which starts from 1997), Brazil (the database of which starts from 1990), Mexico (the database of which starts from 1999). This is all I see for Duran Duran:

All in all, we have 19.8 million Singles, Albums, Videos in combined certified sales from above, and French actual sales of 1.2 million. No matter how far one tried to stretch this figure, it would never surpass the 70 million mark which is what the currently provided source claims for Duran Duran. I'd say, we should leave Duran Duran exactly where they are with 70 million estimated sales figure.--Harout72 (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Certified Sales

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Harout72, you say that certified sales should support atleast 50 % of claimed figures. What about artists like A.R. Rahman, Deep Purple, Village People, Nana Mouskori etc etc? They hardly have any worldwide certification and even the sales in their home country would'nt be sky high ie AR Rahman may have sold a maximum of 3-4 million copies in India (it is not a huge market). In addition, only two of his records have international certifications. Also, Nana Mouskori does not have many certifications internationally as well. Her sales in Greece may be a lot but then you must note Greece is a small market. The same goes for Julio Iglesias. Why aren't you demoting them but rather not promoting bands like Iron Maiden whose certified sales are actually higher? You may say that some of these artists were performing before many certification bases came out but a majority of these artists were known mostly only locally so I don't think that would change things as well. As for Deep Purple, they have sold about 9-10 million in the US and less than a million in the UK, so whether certification bases came out or not i dont think their certified sales will be high 203.101.45.224 (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure which discussion you are referring to. If a band/artist has begun releasing their records in 1980 onwards, for example, then yes, one should see at least 50% of the actual sales certified. However, the percentage of certified sales will be much lower if an artist has begun his/her career in the '50s or '60s as lot of markets did not have certification schemes back then with an exception of the US market. I have posted the certification establishment years below the main table on the list (see it here). So in the case of Deep Purple, I would not be looking to find 50% of the sales certified, as they have begun in late '60s. In the same vein, Nana Mouskourie is a very early beginner, so the same goes for her; however, her French actual sales alone is 13,360,960, not to mention that she's got certifications popping up almost in all markets regardless of how early she's begun her career. As for Julio Iglesias, I'm not sure why one would doubt that he's not sold as much as claimed as his US certified sales alone are huge. A.R. Rahman is being considered for removal altogether, this has been mentioned by me several times in numerous discussions. I hope I cleared things up for you a little.--Harout72 (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Anastacia

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Italian wikipedia and wikipedia uk (or usa) say that Anastacia has sold over 50 million albums ... you can add it?--AccendiLaLuce (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have already corrected the sales figure on the English wikipedia as the provided sources claim 20 million records, but someone had inflated it. --Harout72 (talk) 04:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


ok...but can not be that they get to 50 million with the individual? lady gaga get to 64 thanks to the individual because the album does not come with a 20 ... sorry for mistakes if there are but I'm not English —Preceding unsigned comment added by AccendiLaLuce (talk • contribs) 17:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Janet Jackson

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Janet Jackson should not be moved into a higher section on the list as she has not sold more than 100 million records. All figures published in the sources provided by user OneInAMillion96 are for promotional purposes. 200 million in sales for Janet Jackson is unbelievably inflated. I am going to post all the available certified sales below for Janet Jackson, which should be enough evidence to see that Janet Jackson was a US phenomenon only, in other words, her sales outside of US is not impressive at all.

Please note that there are no certified sales for Janet Jackson in many markets due to extremely weak sales, including Austria, Finland, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina. As one can see Janet Jackson's total certified sales from the available markets above plus the French actual sales is just 47,774,498. And that clearly is enough to understand that the 200 million figure published by some sources are only for marketing purposes possibly given to them by Janet's record company to promote her upcoming material. Again, Janet Jackson should stay within the section of 100-199 with an estimated figure of 100 million.--Harout72 (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree, I think that User:OneInAMillion96 should be blocked from editing. He has made many bogus additions to many of her articles, such as this 200 million figure. Ga Be 19 00:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
As I have undone his edits already, I completely agree!--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 03:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I can not be tried and locked, because I quoted references and when mr. Haraout72 opened this discussion page, I stopped editing the sales of 200 million. I am available, for this discussion, I just did not seem right to be tried, and I quoted sources. Mr.. GaBe19: I do not answer people on your level, you have tried to intimidate me, like calling me 'stupid'. I only speak PEOPLE WITH RESPECT.

Albums:


(Total: 128,945,000 copies)

Singles:

(Total: 22,768,000 copies)

Videos:

Others: 880,000 copies

(Total: 4,880,000)

All sales: 156,593,000

Sincerely,

User:OneInAMillion96 =) —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

The sales you have listed are so inflated, it's laughable. "janet" has barely sold 20, which is listed by this source, and that is even hard to believe. Then, how is her "Design of a Decade" supposed to sell 25 million copies, when it sold 2 million in the US, and under 2 million in Europe. How? No "Velvet Rope" has shipped 3 million in the US, and under 2 in Europe. Now how is that even close to nearly 30 million? it's absurd. If you want to see the kind of album's that have really sold 30+ million copies, look at "Music Box" by Mariah Carey and "Falling into You" by Celine Dion. Those are the kind of sales and certifications needed to hit those numbers.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Mr. OneInAMillion96, Intimidate you? Please! The reason I and many editors have reverted your edits is because of your ludicrous claims. There is NO WAY The Velvet Rope sold 29 Million copies, Janet 32 Million copies, or Design of a Decade 25 Million copies world wide. It has been said NUMEROUS times that "mjjcharts.com" is a cite that is unreliable. Sure the numbers sound valid, but the site itself if questionable. Since you continue to do add and mjjcharts.com and this mtv blog as sources, thats why I suggested that you be blocked from editing. Ga Be 19 22:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
"Sound valid"? Are you kidding me Gabe? Those sales are tripled, they are ridiculous and inflated, they don't match at all. They are 100% BS.--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 22:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm referring to the mjjcharts.com source not the mtv blog. Of course the mtv blog is ludicrous. Ga Be 19 22:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
OneInAMillion96, if you have Nielsen Soundscan's figures, please post them; however, posting sales figures coming from the same Portuguese MTV which has also published the 200 million is not going to help you or anybody else here; I'm afraid. That said, sources of this kind 1, 2 are not regarded as reliable; therefore, they should never be used to support arguments of any kind. Also, artists' official sites such as this are not third party sources and should not be looked at, please refer to WP:RS. I'd personally consider looking at figures coming from Billboard Magazine, and you have provided only one and it's this, but again I am not sure what I'm supposed to understand from that as I see nothing about Janet Jackson on the pointed page. And what is this here supposed to prove? The source doesn't re-direct anywhere as there is no link. Do not use Wikipedia pages to support your arguments as you have used this here. OneInAMillion96, I am sorry, but your figures are not helpful at all.--Harout72 (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with Petergriffin9901. Design of a Decade only shipped 2 million in US and 2 million in entire Europe, only a total of 4 million in teritorries which hold 60-70% music market. How the hell did it sell 21 million in the rest of the world! How could you say Velvet Rope sold 29 million? Only 3 million shipped in US and 2 million in Europe. So it sold 24 million in other minor music markets? I believe that Janet has never been big outside US. Even, in US, she is the eleventh best-selling female artist with 26 million albums. So, it is imposible Janet sold over 50 million albums worldwide. I'm sure that Britney Spears sold more than Janet. She is the eight best-selling female in term album sales, per RIAA. And Britney is much more popular and bigger outside US. If we put Janet in 200-299 million, then we would move Mariah Carey and Celine Dion to over 300 million as both sold far ahead Janet. Finally, Janet official record company Universal Music Groups confirmed that Janet sold 100 million records at Discipline press release in 2008. Do we say that Janet sold another 100 million from 2008? :-) Bluesatellite (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The numbers listed on some of these albums is laughable. The very first album, called "Janet Jackson", didn't even get certified gold in the U.S.; that album only sold around 300,000 copies in the US. No way it sold another one million worldwide to get up to 1.3 million; that album wasn't even a hit. The next album, "Dream Street", sold less than the first album. It sold about 150,000 - 200,000 copies. Again, not a hit so no way it sold another 800,000 worldwide. 1.3 million and 1 million is totally inflated for those albums. Next is "Control". This was a hit album, but it has been certified at 5 million in the US. Even if you raise that to six million since it's last US certification, it's hasn't sold more than 5 million in the rest of the world as Janet is/was not a huge act outside of the United States. So this album wouldn't be at more than 10, 11 million worldwide. But yet, it has 14 million listed. Did someone just tack on an additional four million copies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 03:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Christina Aguilera has sold over 60 million records worldwide.

Her own label released on their website she has sold 46 million albums worldwide: http://www.rcamusicgroup.com/news/christina-aguilera-perform-american-music-awards which is not including any of her singles sales. She should quite clearly be on the list.

To people who dont believe this:

How can Lady Gaga be on here with 55 million when she has sold 15 million albums and people are saying Aguilera can't be on here because she has sold only 30-46 million albums worldwide? She has had some big singles and just go to her page and look at the references for sales. Their are a lot that can agree with me.219.89.129.156 (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We have a discussion above for Christina Aguilera. Why another section? As for Lady Gaga, this list is not about a competition as some editors may view; however, Gaga's 75-80% of the sales relies on singles, only some 25% relies on albums. Also, her singles and even albums have yet to get certified and re-certified, that is normally the case with records that still occupy high chart positions everywhere.--Harout72 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Eric Clapton

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Could editors help me locate a source for Eric Clapton, which preferably claims a figure around 100-120 million in record sales. I've been trying to get Clapton onto this list for quite sometime now, but I have not succeeded in finding a reliable source so far. I'd appreciate any help, the publication doesn't have to be in English language. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't find anything at all, nothing, not even any possibly inflated figures. :( I'm struggling even to find articles which are exclusively about him, as he is name dropped into every article you can imagine, which doesn't help matters. Mattg82 (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't seem to have any luck in locating anything either, I hope someone prints something about Clapton's figures some day day soon as this guy truly deserves to be on this list.--Harout72 (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Album Sales

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Michael Jackson currently sold an estimate of 800 million albums.It is on Wikipedia page of Michael Jackson. And also I do not think Lady Gaga or Rihanna can sell over 50 million albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibirose (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have already removed that claim about the 800 million in record sales as the provided sources on there did not support the claim.--Harout72 (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ {{cite web | url= http:www.ferditayfur.com
  2. ^ http://www.oricon.co.jp/news/rankmusic/77484/full/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists/Archive_15&oldid=1142441520"