Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Eminem sales are way over 100 million

I dont understand why other artist numbers include singles sales , for example rihanna has 50 million copiues in the USA .. ( 7 million albums + 47 million singles, it should be more than that), and Eminem numbers doesnt include them , if u add the 42 million digital downloads and 41 million albums he has sold source: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120105005547/en/Nielsen-Company-Billboard%E2%80%99s-2011-Music-Industry-Report , his USA numbers would be 83+ million copies and the total sales would be 86 million albums plus 42 million digital downloads ONLY IN THE USA for a grand total of 128 million records! not to mention we arenot adding his singles sales from europe or australia. SOMEONE PLEASE CORRECT THIS ARTICLE !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mallende (talk • contribs) 16:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mallende. Eminem's certified figures includes all of his certified singles, albums and digital downloads, nothing has been excluded, apart from raw sales data. Which we don't include for any artist. Now one thing I agree that does need changing, is his claimed figure of 86m albums currently sourced from the BBC. We need a reliable source, from highly regarded publications which says million records and not million albums. Mattg82 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Beach Boys?

I'm not sure how many units they have sold. But shouldn't the Beach Boys be somewhere on this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.75.96.160 (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

For the time being we can't get certifications from RIAA since Anonymous has taken the website down (http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/01/19/anonymous-hackers-claims-attack-on-doj-universal-music-and-riaa-after-megaupload-takedown/). Having seen their discography, though, I'm pretty sure we can get around 10 million or so in certifications if we add everything up. That should be enough for a 50 million claim. Mauri96 (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What are the available sources and the sales figures for The Beach Boys? The RIAA site works, The Beach Boys's available certified sales are 27.2 million including 24.6 million from U.S..--Harout72 (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Rolling Stone say 65 million. Mattg82 (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I've inserted The Beach Boys into the list with the claimed figure of 65 million by Rolling Stone magazine.--Harout72 (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Appropriateness of ranking...

I know this subject, of the 'appropriateness of ranking', has been addressed many times before, and obviously as such it will not go away (and there even are some valid reasons for that). What I would propose, however, following the manifold caveats and cautions raised against the 'Reputed' and 'Claimed' figures, is to at least RANK FIRST by Certified sales, THEN by Reputed sales, in order to give another clear signal that those claims can, indeed, be considerably exaggerated. Is a claim of Ray Conniff selling 50 million truly serious, if the certified number is ('only') 7.8 million, including the US? The certified numbers are the only figures that come from sources that should largely be beyond suspicion as, at least, being neutral as between various claims. That they might be biased in yet other ways, is quite likely (e.g. as to the sales in those countries where there is an anywhere near-serious system of certification), but you can indicate that precisely by continuing to also show the reasonably claimed figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.207.20.200 (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Benjamin Blümchen

Benajmin Blümchen has sold over 60 mio casettes + 8 million video albums according to this site and he has probably enough certified sales to proof it.Ich901 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Ich901

http://www.rostock-heute.de/benjamin-bluemchen-rostock/35323

http://www.musikindustrie.de/gold_platin_datenbank/#topSearch

Benjamin Blümchen is a television animated show in Germany, not an individual singer, a band or a composer. Why do we need to include a television show on this list? This list is for singers/bands, how can a television show be considered as one?--Harout72 (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

yeah he is a fictional character :D

Certification in Norway?

Why aren't the certifications in norway included?--Ahmad123987 (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't have Norway's earlier certification-levels, nor do we have the exact dates for their changes in certification-levels.--Harout72 (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Certifications are available since 1993, so a note can be added saying "(online certification-database covers certifications issued since 1993. Certifications; however, have existed in Norway since..." just like it's done for Italy for example. But if exact dates for their changes in certification-levels aren't available I do see why it would be a problem.

Link: http://www.ifpi.no/sok/lst_trofeer_sok.asp?type=artist

And how about Hungay? Certifications are available since 2000. so a note can also be added saying "(online certification-database covers certifications issued since 2000. Certifications; however, have existed in Hungary since...".

Link: http://www.mahasz.hu/?menu=arany_es_platinalemezek&menu2=adatbazis&ev=2012--Ahmad123987 (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

MAHASZ has the changes in certification-levels posted for their domestic artists. The levels for international artists have been different starting 2005 (if not earlier), see page 23 here for 2005, see this for 2007, see this for 2009, see this for 2011. But again, it is not exactly clear when those changes in levels have occurred. Therefore, we should avoid using MAHASZ too, but I wouldn't worry too much about having Hungary's certifications as it has a very small music market and barely generates any notable sales. See Global music industry market share data for the sizes of markets.--Harout72 (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 February 2012

A singer from Hong Kong, called Jacky Cheung (张学友) has sold over 120 million albums. He is ranked #24 overall all time in album sales. http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/172971996.html http://bbs.railcn.net/viewthread.php?tid=263815

This should be added in to reflect that.

Also, on his chinese wikipedia page, they list that as of 2000, he has sold over 60 million albums. 截至2000年，他的唱片累計總銷量已經突破60,000,000張 http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BC%B5%E5%AD%B8%E5%8F%8B

Christam809 (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Those sources appear to be message board posts. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources alone (if any) won't do as artists must have sufficient number of certified units for this list. The artist mentioned above seems to have begun in 1985 per Jacky Cheung discography; therefore, his claimed figures must be supported by 28% certified sales. The information on required certified sales can be found in the second box from top on this talk-page.--Harout72 (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

John Denver

This 70's singer was brought to my attention by 209.91.107.135 , and I was wondering if we could add him to the "50-59 million records" or the "60-65 million records" sections. He does seem to have 33 million records certified in the U.S..

So far, all the sources I've found claim 60 million albums sold. Of these, the most reliable seem to be <http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2011/06/11/the-music-of-john-denver-soars-at-the-roxy-regional-theatre/> and <http://classical.broadwayworld.com/article/Contest_Win_John_Denvers_Greatest_Hits_20041005> Mauri96 (talk 01:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The first source is the only reliable one out of the two, but unfortunately, it uses the term Albums not Records (Singles, Albums, Videos). And John Denver seems to have 6 million in US certified singles and 100,000 certified Videos. Clearly his total is based on lot of singles as well, therefore, we'd need a source stating Records, not just Albums.--Harout72 (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Candian single certifications only 5,000 copies?

On the Music Canada database it's says 5,000 copies for single certifications. This looks like a big balls up on MCs part, surely they mean 50,000 or something like that :/ Mattg82 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the levels for physical singles were Gold=50,000, Platinum=100,000 from February 1982 until September 2002 it seems. Everything started appearing as 5,000/10,000s for physical singles after CRIA (Music Canada now) site came back after being offline for many months. I have personally contacted CRIA about that, and the person (Quentin) in charge of updating the Gold/Platinum awards said that the system needs to be re-formatted. It's been months since that point, it is still the same. The first singles that got certified with 5,000/10,000 were "A Moment Like This" by Kelly Clarkson released in Sep. 2002. Also, "Cry" by Faithill released in September 2002, or "Die Another Day" by Madonna released in October 2002.--Harout72 (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Def Leppard

According to this link, Def Leppard has sold over 100 hundred million albums worldwide: [1] Can someone please add this to the article. --Jamcad01 (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources must use the term Records not Albums. This is one part of the instructions posted at the top of the main page.--Harout72 (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain WHO made this rule and why it exists as well as what the difference is? --Jamcad01 (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

To answer your question; we all did. This decision was brought up through consensus, not his personal opinion.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The difference, Jamcad01, is that Def Leppard's total sales are based on Albums, Singles and Videos, not just Albums as Rolling Stone claims. And that what the term Records stands for, Albums, Singles, Videos. See Def Leppard's detailed certified sales that I've put together here, it's based on Albums, Singles and Videos. By the way, the 65 million records as claimed by lot of the sources is correct considering that they haven't been terribly popular outside of the U.S. including their home market.--Harout72 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't 100 million Albums worldwide equal more records not less? --Jamcad01 (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I just discovered that when Def Leppard performed on America's got talent that the announcer said that they sold 100 million records worldwide. Def Leppard performs Live on America's Got Talent 2011 Finale Results --Jamcad01 (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That cannot be used. See our Reference Section to see that sales figures must come from prestigious News Service agencies such as CNN, Fox News, The Washington Post, The New York Times etc. or highly regarded Music Industry related establishments such as MTV, VH1 etc.. Again, sources would have to use the term Records. Unless a highly reliable source can be located claiming 100 million records, we should stick to those that we currently have.--Harout72 (talk) 01:29, 8

January 2012 (UTC)

What about this: Legendary rockers Def Leppard on tour --Jamcad01 (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable also. Again, as I mentioned see the Reference Section.--Harout72 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What's so unreliable about that one? That one is third party based and is similar to any online newspaper. I mean it's not as common as some others but that doesn't mean it's less reliable. --Jamcad01 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am going to add it if no one replies within 2 days. --Jamcad01 (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been replied, we don't have to explain in dozen different ways. That source is not reliable for this list as we accept highly reliable sources only, and that is not one. If you need further comments as to why it cannot be viewed as prestigious news services, then, post it at WP:RSN, and the folks should be able to give you further input.--Harout72 (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This source has come just recently: Interview: Phil Collen talks 30 years with Def Leppard, Rock Of Ages film It states 100 million records worldwide and I'm sure Music Radar is a reliable source especially when it's an interview with one of the band members. --Jamcad01 (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a reliable source. What makes it reliable?--Harout72 (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

How can an interview with a band member, not be a reliable source? If a publication is qualified to be able to get an interview with a famous person then it should be reliable enough. It is owned by Future Publishing which also owns many guitar based magazines. Music Radar even has its' own wikipedia page! I really can't think of a way this source could be unreliable. --Jamcad01 (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The interview itself isn't directly connected with the general reliability of Musicradar.com. Interviews can be conducted by radio stations or others like Musicradar (all of which may have pages on wiki), but they are not necessarily regarded as reliable. As I explained above, we are after articles published by news services or MTV, VH1, Billboard.--Harout72 (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Who made you in charge of this page? Is there anything about this site that makes it unreliable? Honestly there's no rules saying that the sources have to be what YOU think are reliable sources. --Jamcad01 (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No one has made me in charge of the list. But I happen to be one of the main regular editors on here who's in charge of bringing the list to the level it is. To avoid constantly inflated sales figures, we don't accept sources like the Musicradar.com, all of the sources are either news services or MTV and Billboard like prestigious sources. Musicradar.com cannot be compared to new services when it comes to their resources they use to get their information right. Why should we make an exception for one artist? Since you can't reach a consensus and you obviously disagree with the way we operate, then perhaps you should post a complaint at WP:AN/I.--Harout72 (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean "our"? It looks like at the moment it's just YOU & ONLY YOU!! --Jamcad01 (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Read again, there is no our being mentioned anywhere. Also, go over the other discussions on this page, you will see either me or Mattg82 responding only. We have other editors helping out also when we need to decide on a new policy. Most of the time; however, it's the two of us. --Harout72 (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I mean't "we". Anyway just because you two users agree with something doesn't mean it's consensus. Other users have a right as well.

Pay close attention when you read please. I said: We decide on a new policy by getting more than just the two of us involved. By that I mean others who are familiar with this list. And yes, we have a consensus; therefore, it says at the top of the main page Note: Although this list largely relies on claimed figures by highly reliable sources.... And highly reliable sources here means news services, and other prestigious music industry related organizations. Musicradar.com is not one of them. Now if there is such highly reliable source that claims 100 million for DL, please bring it here, otherwise, further discussions will be futile as we've said enough of this. --Harout72 (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Show me a link to where it says musicradar.com is unreliable and I'll go. --Jamcad01 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not because it is unreliable as such but it is not the highly reliable sourcing we are after. See the references section that contains sources from highly regarded newspapers and news sources, pretty much unquestioned in their reliability. Having Musicradar as as source on this list, would not look good when sat between the likes of The New York Times or The Independent for instance. Mattg82 (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Deep Purple

Also do you happen to have a copy of Deep Purples certified sales chart? I just want to see if I can get them on the list. --Jamcad01 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Deep Purple have been removed from the list months ago due to not having their 100 million claim covered by at least 15% certified sales, which is the required percentage of certified sales for those who've begun charting before 1975. Deep Purple's available certified sales are only some 12 million units, which can support a claimed figure of up to 80 million records only. Since such source couldn't have been found, Deep Purple was placed at the top of the main page next to those artists/bands who aren't on the list due to lack of certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Spain's database from 1986!!!

here is the link: http://afyvecharts.blogspot.com/2007/08/1999-albumes-2-parte.html you can look it up for some artists like Enrique, Shakira and Ricky Martin to find their actual certificates. for example Enrique has at least 12 platinums!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.153.226 (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A very detailed and complete chart source. Unfortunately it goes against what we are trying to achieve here, which is using highly reliable sources and official certification databases. Blogs do not pass as reliable sources no matter how "correct" or "true" they are and could not be used in a featured list which this page is aiming for soon. Mattg82 (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Tom Jones

Is true that Tom Jones sold more than 100 millons? It´s really possible. He is still recording since 1964, and he has in his career numerous Top Charts.

3 News BBC NEWS Tom Jones OFFICIAL WEB

--186.19.197.2 (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

See archived discussion and the top of this talk page, which states he requires at least 15% of his claimed figure in certified units to be included on this list. Based on his total of 12.5 million certified units, 100m records is inflated so we can't put him on with that figure. Mattg82 (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Eric Clapton

Anyone got any idea what Eric Clapton has sold? I think he has 45 million units in the U.S. alone. Hes also massive in U.K. and around the world. The one problem is i cant find a worldwide figure for him (i've searched quite a bit online). O.o.11.dell (talk • contribs) 06:24, 9 February 2012

He deserves a place on the list, but we have had the same problem locating sources for his total claimed sales. Mattg82 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Tool band or Primus Band

im beside myself that a band like Tool which i saw on monday and filled arenas in their tour is not included in this list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.218.11 (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Problematic Beatles source?

Hi, one of the Beatles' "1 billion" sources is problematic:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aDuU5KDQ.tn8&refer=muse

For its "1 bn records sold" claim, it links to an EMI page that doesn't exist anymore (404 error):

http://www.emimusic.com/NR/exeres/60E71CC3-405A-42F4-A013-1B20496FAE04.htm

I searched the EMI site but couldn't find a proof of the claim. Should we delete this reference, or do we keep it, having faith that the Bloomberg author did his research properly?

Thanks for your input,

--Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bloomberg source seems to work for me, it doesn't redirect to EMI page. No need for the third source.--Harout72 (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Harout72, thanks for your answer! You are of course right: There is no technical problem with the link. The Bloomberg article loads alright and states the required claim (Beatles sold 1 bn records). My concern is, it looks like the Bloomberg article was basing its claim on an EMI source that doesn't exist anymore and is not otherwise verifiable. To my eyes, this seems to make a bad impression. Hence my suggestion to supplement or even replace the Bloomberg source with the Guinness World Record source, which is reputable as well, quotes EMI as well for the same claim, but doesn't have the reference-link-that-doesn't-work-anymore issue. What do you think?

--Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite honestly I don't think highly of the Guinness Book as I've seen them publish outrageous sales figures including the 100 million for Thriller which based on its available certified sales is outright illogical. Also, the 1 billion for The Beatles is inflated enough regardless who reports it, but since The Beatles have enough certified to meet the requirements of the list (posted at the top of this page), we allow that figure be listed. Personally I would prefer not to use the Guinness Book for this list. Perhaps, we could replace the Bloomberg source with another news agency, if there is one that's published the 1 billion without mentioning EMI.--Harout72 (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine by me. Maybe we'll see new total figures from good sources arise when the Remasters reach certification level. --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Beatles record sales, surely not right

The articale says: US: 207.6 million[5] UK: 7 million[Notes][9]

This cannot be correct - 7 million is not the right answer. I've looked at the database and this does not list the biggest Beatles albums (Sgt Pepper, Let It Be, Revolver, Rubber Soul, Abbey Road, Help, White Album, etc, etc). Why use a database that is clearly inadequate? In 2009 "EMI has shipped 5m remastered CD recordings " in the UK. In that year alone!

If the DB is wrong for that then it probably is from M Jackson and Elvis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.65.22 (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right, the figures are only certified sales, not total sales. Please see the notes on that subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists#endnote_Notes

Specifically concerning the Beatles, they split up before the UK certification system was even established (1973), so it is logical that their primary material doesn't show up, only compilations that were issued later on (like "1"). Not sure about the 2009 remasters though, technically they should be there, just like "Let it be (naked)" is. Maybe they don't count them because they're "just" the old material remastered, whereas "Let it be (naked)" was more than a remaster, actually a new compilation of "Get Back/Let It Be" era songs?

--Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That's correct, UK has established its certification system in 1973, therefore, the sales of those albums/singles released before that point will not appear in the databases of certifying bodies. Some earlier albums/singles which have continued to sell after 1973, may have been certified only for units sold after '73. For The Beatles, all certified materials by BPI and other certifying bodies are counted. If some album/single/video is not included, it's because they're not posted on the sites of the certifying agencies. See this detailed uploaded file that I've put together which shows what's counted. Normally, very few albums/singles/videos reach a certification-level and go uncertified.--Harout72 (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Enigma

According to this source Enigma has sold more than 50 million records.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/virginemi-to-release-enigma-the-platinum-collection-boxed-set-on-february-9-79339722.html

Ich901 (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Enigma needs to have its claimed figure covered by 35% certified sales since it's first charted in 1990. The 35% of 50 million as claimed by prnewswire.com translates into 17.5 million, but Enigma's available certified sales are only 15.3 million. That's 2.2 million short; therefore, we can't put Enigma on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 05:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Argentina, Finnland and the Middle East are missing in your list.Ich901 (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Finland has 21,236 certified units, we include markets that have at least 100,000 certified units.
• NVPI (Holland) site doesn't bring up certification results.
• CAPIF (Argentina) site isn't functioning at the moment, it's offline. I highly doubt that CAPIF has anything for Enigma.
• Russia's site is offline at the moment also, but it had certifications posted for releases starting 2003 onwards, it probably had nothing for Enigma.
• I normally don't do Norway's certified sales as I still don't have their earlier certification-levels. But my guess is that the total posted on IFPI Norway site comes up to 135,000 as Platinum/Gold on albums were 50,000/25,000 before 2000 or 2001, and for singles Platinum/Gold were 20,000/10,000. Their levels in 2005 were 40,000/20,000 for albums, and 5,000/10,000 for singles, see page 23 on this.
• Do Middle East's certifications go back to 1990s? Or early 2000s? Provide me the source along with a source supporting their certification-levels, I'll look at it.

All in all, had we had the certified sales for the markets you mention, the total would still be short by good 1.5 million from the required percentage.--Harout72 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have taken all information from the german discography page, sources are at the end of the page. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma/Diskografie

and here is the link for the middle east. http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/mid_east_2009.html

Ich901 (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The same source for Russia, Argentina and the Netherlands don't work there either. The Gold certification-award-level for Middle East's Gulf States is 10,000 per the 2009 IFPI report. Let's bear in mind that the certification-figures for each market has to be over 100,000 in order for us to include them on the list, otherwise, tiny figures are not worth even mentioning including Finland's figure.--Harout72 (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Bob Marley

Bob Marley has sold over 250 million records internationally. Why is he not in the list?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Marley_%26_The_Wailers_discography#cite_note-0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.5.169 (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"page not found"Ich901 (talk) 13:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

250 million sales are impossible. When their album Legend sold more than 25 million times, and if their remaining albums just received Platinum certifications, how is that possible that they sold 250 million recordings? Also Bob Marley was a member of the Bob Marley & The Wailers, so now it is even more dubious.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 12:29, 19 February 2012 ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.86.152 (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Source for Rihanna's 130 million records sales

I found a new source wich says that Rihanna has a total sale of 130 million records: http://www.thelamron.com/a-e/rhianna-conquers-youtube-1.2784170#.T0AUL_VwTQk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikeriri (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The source is only weakly reliable. Are there other sources claiming a figure total of over 100 million?--Harout72 (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Source for Prince's total record sales

I had a look at the linked source for Prince's total sales put at 80 million, but could not find this figure anywhere on the web page it directed me to. This the linked source used for Prince's wikipedia page, puts his sales at 100 million. Im looking for a second opinion before I make an sort of revision, in case I've made a mistake or something. Aunty-S (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The 80 million is posted right below the second image.--Harout72 (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The Michael Jackson Estate confirms a record sale of 1 Billion

Michael Jacksons estate has confirmed that Michael Jackson has sold over 1 Billion albums worldwide. Source: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-estate-of-michael-jackson-plans-graumans-chinese-theatre-hand--footprint-ceremony-celebrating-the-king-of-pop-january-26-2012-136740033.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teewauw (talk • contribs) 11:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Katy Perry

I've been going over some of this singer's sales and in spite of the fact that she received her first certification around 2007, she already has 31 million in RIAA certifications alone. I was wondering if, after adding all her other certifications and finding a source, we could add her to the list. So far I've found only two reliable sources for 50 million in sales, which are this one from USA Today and this other one from U-T San Diego. Mauri96 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Katy Perry's available certified sales seem to be total of 41.7 million units from all the music markets, but the sources above speak of Digital Sales only, which we can't use, because Perry's album-certifications are based on Standard formats. If there are claims by other sources, maybe separate figures for albums and digital sales, or perhaps a total figure without the term Digital, we could use them. All in all, Perry's sales claim should be supported by 66% certified sales per our requirements, and her 41.7 million in certified sales could support up to total of 63 million claim.--Harout72 (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Johnny Cash issue.

Currently, the list of best-selling music artists puts Cash at around 50 million records. I would argue that that figure is roughly half of the actual count. Many sources claim Cash's total is over 90 or even 100 million records--which I think is a reasonable number when you consider he has been releasing albums since 1955, and even after his death in 2003 several more have been released. His wikipedia discography page, which I know for a fact does not include every single record he released, is packed with hundreds of records. His albums were also released in many countries. In addition to JohnnyCash.com, this was claimed by the mayor of Nashville in a recent video about the forthcoming Johnny Cash museum, the Sun Records website and dozens of other websites and books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Septic (talk • contribs) 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Pet Shop Boys have sold > 100 million records

according to the wikipedia page about 'em (source: on the bottom of the page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.130.161.27 (talk) 11:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Should this long article be split into smaller ones?

Should this long article be split into smaller ones, perhaps one for each sortable table (unless all the sortable tables are combined into one sortable table)?--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't be combined into one because the purpose of the list is in a way to illustrate which artist falls into what sales category. I've thought about splitting the list into two (as that would make the most sense rather than into eight) but it would still be quite long.--Harout72 (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

If we split the page into eight lists, the individual lists won't be long any more. I also agree that all lists should not be combined into one list.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be split into eight, some of the sections are not long at all. And if split into just two, the split pages would have to have the same footnotes, and that alone would make the split pages long again. In the end, it will still all be about scrolling down and finding the artists you're looking for, regardless of whether they all lie on a single page or two pages. Are there such examples on wikipedia that one list/article lies on multiple pages due to its size?--Harout72 (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

List of High Schools in Paraguay--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

They all seem to be separate lists with one having no connection with an other.--Harout72 (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Beyonce + Brazil

Beyonce has only 310,000 certified units in Brazil? Is that a big joke? I also see Rihanna has more. My point is not that Rihanna's 655,000 certified units are inflated but Beyonce cannot have less than her. Beyonce is the only international artist to have a diamond album in Brazil and yet 310,000 is her certified units? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

In Brazil, Beyonce has one Diamond on I am Sasha Fierce... and a Double Platinum on her DVD The Beyoncé Esperience Live. The Diamond-award in Brazil for an international album released in 2008 is 250,000 units, the Double Platinum for a DVD released in 2007 is 60,000 units, the total certified units for for Brazil is 310,000. As for Rihanna, yes she has a lot more certifications in Brazil and elsewhere.--Harout72 (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

After all, this is only about certified units. She remains the best selling international artist there. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 March 2012

Michael Jackson's Album sales are more than 350 million - 750 million. They are 750 million - 1 billion if not there over a billion. His estate released the numbers in January 2012 that he had reached 1 billion record sales world wide. http://www.legendarymichaeljackson.nl/?p=6246

Perro.robert (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Not according to his certified sales it's not.--Harout72 (talk) 07:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Beyonce

• 4 is gold in France. [2]
• "Love on Top" is gold in Italy. [3]

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Anastacia

IFPI.org + this and all the single make anastacia about 50 millions

• Not That Kind 16 million (the total amount of platinum marked by IFPI.org)
• Freak Of Nature16 million sourced by http://www.octagon-uk.com/content.aspx?menu=98
• Anastacia 12 million (the total amount of platinum marked by IFPI.org)
• Pieces Of a Dream and Heavy Rotation with their certification about 1,5 million

all without singles!

am i right?--AccendiLaLuce (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No you're not right. First this is how it is per IFPI:

• Not That Kind: 4 million
• Freak of Nature: 3 million
• Anastacia: 3 million

That's only 10 million per IFPI Europe. Besides per our requirements posted at the top of this page, for 50 million claim, Anastacia would need 50% in certified units (that's 25 million units) because she's begun charting in 2000. Her certified sales combined from all available markets, are just over 12 million. Also, the source you provided above is not a reliable one and it states 16 million albums in total, not 16 million for Freak of Nature as you have incorrectly understood. All in all, she couldn't be on this list even if we had a reliable source claiming 50 million.--Harout72 (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

count ervery year how many certifications has got. BTW there is this..it is about...uhm... 40%? http://jmenternational.com/work/?client=SonyBMG
every article in the site from 2000, add to Anastacia erver years 2-3 platinum at year. I have misunderstood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AccendiLaLuce (talk • contribs) 10:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I can hardly understand what you're saying, but the 20 million in your source is just about right for Anastacia. By the way, that is not certified sales, that is actual sales. I'm not sure if you know the difference between the Certifies sales and Actual sales. The certified sales are those coming from certifying bodies like BPI, Bundesverband Musukindustrie etc.--Harout72 (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 March 2012

Hi, I'm a humongous fan of the Red Hot Chili Peppers and listen to them all of the time. Anyway, I was on the list of best-selling music artists and noticed it shows they have only sold 50 million albums, when thwy have sold over 80 million. It would make my day if you could change that to the real statistic.

Deepest regards, RHCP fan

72.241.82.223 (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source claiming 80 million records?--Harout72 (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Kate Bush

I've been painstakingly going through this English singer's certifications, and it turns out that she has ~7.8 million, the absolute minimum for a 50 million claim.

So far, I have only found this and this reference for 50 million records sold. However, there are more reliable sources like this one and this other one that claim 20 million records sold.

Could Kate Bush please be added to the list?--Mauri96 (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid none of the sources above is reliable. If a reliable source such as CNN, BBC or something similar is located which claims 50 million records, I'd go over Kate Bush's certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Jimi Hendrix Experience

What about the Jimi Hendrix Experience they sold over 70 million records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edge4life42 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Source?--Mauri96 (talk) 02:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Reach 1 billion sold records

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-estate-of-michael-jackson-plans-graumans-chinese-theatre-hand--footprint-ceremony-celebrating-the-king-of-pop-january-26-2012-136740033.html

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.77.86 (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the MJ number of 750 million is vastly inflated. I've combed the web for reliable numbers on all of his albums and singles. For some items, it's hard to come by accurate numbers, so when there was some doubt I estimated very favorably for him. Even so, I come up with a total of only 365.6 million sales, albums and singles added together, worldwide. I won't claim that as a definitive number - I'm perfectly happy to accept a degree of error. But there is no way I am off by 400 million! My guess is that MJ's label (and maybe his fans) are hyping his numbers to create some sensationalism for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mawillia2525 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what's happening with MJ's 750 million figure, incredibly inflated. Although, I'm surprised that you claim that you have found number of units sold online totaling over 350 million. Are those figures coming from reliable sources? My guess is that MJ's entire worldwide total would be well under 400 million units, including his sales in every corner of the globe.--Harout72 (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

You can "guess" as much as you like regarding your selective thoughts on whose figures are "inflated" and to which ones seem just about right to you. Michael Jackson has, more-than-likely, sold more records than the Beatles and Elvis on a worldwide scale; he was more famous/popular and more of a phenomenon worldwide and yet, in the face of that, you are still trying to put his sales figures to way under 400 million? Now who is sounding illogical?

Those sales figures of 750 are more documented /spoken of by the very musical establishments/bodies that we are talking about. The Beatles/Elvis quotes seem to be more of an on-going online debate between the fans of either. Not ONE Musical establishment/body has confirmed/repeatedly mentioned /relayed such.

And, no fans, label/or PR's are inflating or "hyping his numbers to create some sensationalism" ...you could say the same thing for EP and the Beatles if that is the case.

There has ALWAYS been MEDIA hype and sensationalism" created around Michael Jackson anyway, (Much of which he did not want OR consciously seek)so you are not making any sense with that remark.

Sources for sales, (especially **worldwide**) for the other two are no better a source than what is for Michael Jackson - Yet that figure of 750 has been mentioned/spoken about at various music award ceremonies numerous times, without any problems from the very establishments that hand out musical awards. The man is the "Most Successful Entertainer of All Time" , has "Won More Awards than Any other Artist in History" - was known in the remotest parts of the globe - practically a house-hold name - is the only artist in history who had *worldwide* fans from the ages of 2 to 82 - had record-breaking concert attendances - The only artist to win major awards in every recognized music nation worldwide - has also been named as the artist of "the Decade", "Generation", "Century", and "Millennium", (via Bambi award) – was honoured by two Presidents of the United States - was the most famous singer/person on the planet – had more of an influence and impact on a worldwide scale…he was a *Global icon - He broke more records than any other artist in history, and on and on... and yet you try to put it across that he has sold less than half of what EP and the Beatles sold? Yea, that is logical...Not!

Michael Jackson was actually the first artist to sell 100 million records OUTSIDE of the USA - so that alone contradicts your sources for EP's worldwide sales of anywhere near a billion.

Personal bias is all I detect here.

• If Michael Jackson's sales are being "inflated" at 750 million, then what the hell is happening to Elvis Presley? Not a single album in the best sellers list while Jackson has more than any other artist with five? There is no way in hell that Presley outsold Jackson in singles and it doesn't make sense to think he could have higher sales in categories like music videos, tour DVDs or smaller things like ringtones which count towards "record" sales. The Beatles would most probably have the highest record sales (though nowhere close to one billion) but Michael Jackson is easily second but whenever that change is made to this article it's followed by reversion and the person who did it receiving a vandalism threat. Mc8755 (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Had Jackson outsold Presley whether by Singles or Albums or even Videos, he would've had more certified sales than the latter, which is not the case. Let's bear in mind that Presley has sold most of his records during the time when most of the music markets besides USA had no certification-systems, and still his available certified sales are 40 million more than that of Jackson's. On the other hand, Jackson began selling most of his records in early '80s, and during that time all larger music markets had their certification-systems already established, that includes Germany, UK, France. Those four larger music markets alone, USA, Germany, UK and France generate over 50% of the global record sales. Jackson's 155 million in certified units should translate into no more than 300-350 million in actual sales including all of his record sales coming from all over the world. Of course, neither Presley nor The Beatles have sold 1 billion records either, the actual sales for those two should be around 400-500 million and 500-600 million respectively.--Harout72 (talk) 04:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Surely it's clear that Jackson's certified sales have remained stationary for the last decade? The posthumous sales alone bump that number significantly, not to mention the countless compilation albums that have collectively sold over 16 million copies (Number Ones has sold over 11 million alone, Essential Michael Jackson well over 5.5 million; This Is It was the third best selling album of 2009 after all!) Several reliable sources on Jackson's own article and Music in 2009 cite Jackson sold 35 million records including 8 million albums in the US alone in just the 6 months following his death in 2009. It just seems to me that his sales have suffered the most by being capped for the last 10-12 years with what the current certifications allow for the estimate. Mc8755 (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We should get back to serious. We all know Beatles, Elvis and Jackson sales are way too much inflated due to harsh Record Co competition into promoting their artists. Remember Elvis and Beatles "war" early 80's, now it's Michael Jackson against EVIS/BEATLES. Either we're following official statements (which is more/less irrelevant) or trying to imagine how much they sold (which is ridiculous and impossible). Also, we all know that certifications are made by organizations that Majors have to update (!) this not is relevant either. Let's stick to OFFICIAL STATEMENT and maybe adding right bellow certifications found and/or available. I suggest 2 different presentations, one with highest sales estimated (tv, radio, magazine, websites, press relating, and previous GWR datas) and the other one with official claimed sales (stated by Majors, artists official websites and official organisations statements such as ifpi, WMA, AMA, etc..) :

The Beatles :

• Highest estimated sales : 1 billion
• Official claimed sales : 600 million to 1 billion (as of 2009)

Elvis Presley :

• Highest estimated sales : 1 billion
• Official claimed sales : 600 million to 1 billion (as of 2009)

Michael Jackson :

• Highest estimated sales : 1 billion
• Official claimed sales : 750 million (as of 2006)

I wish everyone's ego would let this happen because that is what the situation looks like for those three biggest selling artists of all time. (Readerweb (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC))

While Record Companies need to submit a fee to obtain certifications, I don't see how that's irrelevant when good 95-98% of all records get certified eventually. There are no official or more accurate claims out there for total sales as you suggest. There are accurate claims for some individual albums/singles reported by Yahoo's Chart Watch or Billboard, but they're only for some albums/singles released in US after Nielsen Soundscan was established. By the way, the total sales of good 50% of the artists/bands on the list are inflated, it's not only MJ, EP or The Beatles. Those figures are given to news services by artists' record companies, although, I've noticed during the past few years that news services tend to do more research on their own when publishing sales figures. They no longer seem to rely only on the figures submitted to them by record companies. Anyways, I don't think there is anything else we can change to make the total sales figures appear more accurate.--Harout72 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• ReaderWeb's format seems the most fair when it takes into account the difference in upper level sales estimates and puts it into context relating the official claimed sales. Claimed is its own column next to certifications so inflated sales are expected beyond the top three artists and it seems fairly double standard to allow The Beatles and Elvis' upper estimations to be displayed and not Jackson's.Mc8755 (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe I explained above that there are no more official claims than what we already have. By the way, Mc8755, what do you mean by it seems fairly double standard to allow The Beatles and Elvis' upper estimations to be displayed and not Jackson's? We have MJ's highest claim (750 million) posted on there also. Has any prestigious news service published higher figures than 750 million for MJ? Because the 1 billion claim by The Estate of Michael Jackson isn't anything we can work with.--Harout72 (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, sooner or later relevant websites will relate Jackson's 1 billion records sales, it's about time. The thing is, it's been 25 years that we heard Beatles crossed the 1 billion sales (Elvis since 1980), Jackson's new breaking record sales was announced last January 2012, still not in people's mind yet. (Readerweb (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC))

last January 2012? Are you from the future? maybe you could check MJ's future certifications

It's funny to see how some of Jackson's fans keep to insist that he sold over 1 billion records. There's no way Michael Jackson sold more than Elvis Presley. Presley started his career two decades earlier (when some biggest music markets had no certification database), yet his certified units far more than those of Jackson. I strongly oppose to add his one billion sales into this page, even if reputable news service confirms that claim. Bluesatellite (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is that? Because Elvis is your idol, Jackson is not?? That is so ridiculous my friend. I'm so not Jackson's fan neither someone else's. FYI, I love music history in all kind that creates. Well, I'm just tired of this corporatism, it's like The Beatles and Presley are the only ones who get the right to sell over a billion, I'm sorry but Wikipedia DOES NOT stand for this state of mind. Like mentionned above, There used to be the Elvis and Beatles "war" back early 80's of "WHO OUTSOLD WHOM", now Jackson VS Beatles/Presley. Back to topic, Jackson's estate stated 1 billion records sold last January, I could understand that we can not work with this for now (just like Harout72 said) but once relevant websites will relate this statement I suggest to update the list as I suggested above. Thank you for your understanding (Readerweb (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC))

Jackson's certified sales do not reflect "one billion" sales. Also 750 million isn't the lowermost claimed sales estimate, 350 million is. Therefore Jackson would still be ranked 3rd in place of this list. Garth Brooks and Madonna have both outsold Jackson in certified sales, there's no reason to inflate or bloat his sales any further. You must also note that one billion is an estimate, like 750 million. 750 million is not a claimed sale-set, but an estimate. Therefore Jackson's rank still wouldn't change, for the second time. Elvis and the Beatles' sales still support their one billion figures, which is much unlike Jackson. Once Jackson's certified sales reflect his claimed/estimated sales, the list will change. Elvis and the Beatles claimed sales of course would be higher than 600 million if we were to find an updated source, which wouldn't matter anyway since the one billion mark is more or less "+1 billion". Jackson's estate is not very reliable in the sense that if he had sold that much, his certified sales would reflect it in one way or another.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.168.187 (talk)

Elvis Presley Edit Request (Update March 31st)

I've come to notice that Elvis' Japanese sales have not been included. I searched far and wide for some and found that he went platinum with Elvis 30 #1 hits. http://www.riaj.or.jp/issue/record/2003/200301_02.pdf I'm sure we all know that he's sold more in Japan, but due to when the certification system came out there, well, there's just no way to really tell. Elvis also had a gold certification in Mexico http://www.amprofon.com.mx/certificaciones.php?artista=elvis&titulo=&disquera=&certificacion=todas&anio=todos&categoria=todas&Submitted=Search&item=menuCert&contenido=buscar Also just double checked Canada, Elvis sold 5.1 million there, http://www.musiccanada.com/GPSearchResult.aspx?st=&ica=False&sa=elvis&sl=&smt=0&sat=-1&ssb=Artist

http://www.ultratop.be/xls/Awards%201997.htm elvis also sold 40,000 in Belgium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.168.187 (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• According to the RIAJ source you provided above, Elvis 30 #1 Hits has gone Platinum in Japan for shipment/sales of 200,000 units (see here for Japan's earlier levels for International acts). That source is useful for other artists as well, thanks for that.

• Mexico's Gold certification for Elvis 30 #1 Hits is for 75,000 units because it was released in 2002. We are to include those markets which have a total of at least 100,000 units in certification. This is stated at the bottom of each section.

• As for Canadian certifications, I doubled checked again, and the total for albums including Vinyl Formats and CD Formats is 2,380,000, Singles total is 275,000, Videos total is 270,000. The grand Total is 2,925,000 (see detailed list of certifications I've put together here). Make sure you don't double count the Canada's certification-awards, they have a formatting anomaly which produces lot of the awards multiple times. I have contacted Music Canada regarding this, they said the site needs a re-formatting, but it's been months since then. I'd done Presley's Canadian certifications some time ago, the Introducing Elvis for 100,000 units (Platinum) was not included, I'll update it now.

• The same for Belgium, anything less than 100,000 will not be included per our instructions of the list.--Harout72 (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Could I possibly have the detailed list for Michael Jackson and the Beatles? That Elvis list is really helpful and I'd like to compare the three of them in full.

Please don't forget to sign by clicking the symbol of the pen located at the upper bar (the bar appears when you edit pages), it makes it easy for all of us to know who the other editor is. Here you are with the detailed list of the certifications of Michael Jackson and The Beatles.--Harout72 (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I was browsing this website here: http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/ifpi_awards.html where I found http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/plat1998.html and http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_news/plat2002.html which totals to an extra four million for him. Also that document you provided lists his album sales at 126 million, but the RIAA list him at 134.5 million http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinum.php?content_selector=top-selling-artists then he's listed here http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/10000/best-selling-solo-artist at 129.5 million. Both Jackson and the Beatles add to their correct totals on the RIIA's page, but Presley is still about 10 million short according to it. --HCYS (talk) 11:33, 31 March 2012 (PC)

• Those are the certifications of IFPI Europe for albums, which are strictly based on all sales of European markets combined. In other words, the IFPI Europe's 3 million units for Elvis 30 #1 Hits, is based on UK's 2x Platinum (600,000), Germany 3x Gold (450,000), France's 2x Gold (200,000), Sweden's 2x Platinum (120,000), Spain's Platinum (100,000) etc.. We are to count the certifications of individual markets only. Counting the IFPI Europe's album-certifications would be double counting for the markets that offer certifications.
• If you look closely, on my document I have the Albums and Short-form albums listed separately. My total is 133,250,000, still I see a difference of 1,250,000, which I will look into.--Harout72 (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah I see, I was thinking that must've been the case, since no other artist had EU listed. I'm also fairly sure that the 134.5 figure is of September 2011, though I'm not sure, but I'd like to know where the error was made on whoever's part. --HCYS (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2012 (PC)

OK I re-did all of Presley's U.S. certifications, just to see what was making the the difference. So the total for Albums=128,000,000, Shortform-albums=6,500,000 (total for all albums=134,500,000), Singles=51,100,000, Video-singles=300,000, Video-Longforms=2,250,000. The total for U.S. is 188,550,000. I'll update it on the main page momentarily.--Harout72 (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=22&storycode=1035210 I found this recently on a Wikipedia article, which is about 4 times as many sales as listed in the UK's certification database.--HCYS 11:41, 1 April 2012 (PC)

While those figures could be correct, those are sales figures, not certified units, and the latter is what we're aiming at here. Since the UK (BPI) established its certification-system in 1973, lot of the pre-sold units have gone uncertified. However, artists like Madonna, who's begun charting way after 1973 (the cert. establishment year), will have smaller gap between the certified units and actual sales figures. For example, your article states 843,561 units for "Into the Groove" (1985), and that single's been certified Gold for 500,000 units (see earlier UK singles levels). Other singles of Madonna that have been certified are close to those figures as well including "Like a Virgin" 768,129 (certified Gold for 500,000 units), "Holiday" 752,968 (certified Gold for 500,000 units). Bear in mind that the certified figures are often going to be lower than the actual sales figures. Records get certified when they reach the Silver/Gold/Platinum certification-levels.--Harout72 (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

P!nk Has Sold 105 Million Records

P!nk has sold 105 million records worldwide with 40 million albums and 65 million singles sold worldwide. I can find 29.9 million certified.

Can't Take Me Home: 6 million sold

Missundaztood: 15 million sold

Try This: 4 million sold

I'm Not Dead: 5 million sold

Funhouse: 8 million sold

Greatest Hits... So Far: 3 million sold

I put her on the list but got told I can't put her on until I've asked if other people agree that she should be added to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoottscoott (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Pink has 28.4 million in certified units (albums, singles, videos). Since she's begun charting in 2000, per our list's requirements (which are posted in the second box from the top on this page), she needs to have her claimed figures supported by 50% certified sales. Pink's 28.4 in certified sales can only support a sales figure of up to 56.9 million.--Harout72 (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Illegal downloads

With some sources reporting 95% of album and Singles now a days downloaded by Pirate copy or other illegal means etc should some part be included considering this was not available in other artists day like Madonna,I think you should include a part on it considering it is unfair on artists like Rihanna,Lady Gaga etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.111.246 (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

People could copy cassettes and Cd's in earlier times. By the way this is a list of best "selling" music artists. Maybe it should be mentioned in the introduction that filesharing and illegal downloads lead to lower sales for the artists. But on the other single sales seem to increase because of digital downloads...Ich901 (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Genre comparison

What is with the idea of Led Zeppelin being classified as "hard rock / heavy metal" yet queen as simply "rock"? No proportions here at all... Both bands should be considered having the same genre. 84.111.104.137 (talk) 09:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson has sold 79 million albums.

According to his record label, as of 2009, 50+ million albums: http://cookingvinyl.com/portfolio-item/marilyn-manson/

According to this source, as of 2010, 68 million worldwide and 11 million in America: http://gamerant.com/rock-band-3-artists-harmonix-trung-30677/

What are you waiting for to write it down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.124.132 (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Those sources are not reliable. Figures should come from prestigious news services or music industry related organizations such as Billboard, MTV etc.--Harout72 (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Female Artist Incorrect US Certifications

Your certified facts about Celine Dion, Mariah carey, Whitney Houston, Barbra Streisand and Madonna are all wrong in the US are wrong if you check the RIAA you will see

Mariah Carey $63.5 (not $83.1) Barbra Streisand $71.5 (not $83.3) Madonna $64m (Not $84.7) Whitney Houston $55 (not $71.2)

In fact most of the actual list is incorrect if you are going by CERTIFIED ALBUMS

First, sign your name after your comments. Second, the listed certified sales include certifications for Albums, Singles and Videos, not just Albums.--Harout72 (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Cher's record sales

I hope you may edit Cher's record sales because it's not only over 100 million, it's over 210 million. As it says here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Cher#Recognition_.26_Records Thank you for your kind attention! Lenar328 (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Anything above 100 million records for Cher would be inflation based on her available certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Suspect numbers

I think the numbers are very suspect. Eg: Beatles in the USA: 210m, and in the UK 7m. I simply don't believe that. How could it be that the USA with 4.5x the population have 30x the record sales?

Sgt Pepper has certified sales of 5,045,000 in the UK and 10,000,000 in the US. So 7m for ALL Beatles albums is ridiculous. Abbey Road in the charts for 104 weeks, Revolver for 116 weeks, Rubber Soul for 40 weeks, all reached no. 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.183.103 (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Those are certified sales figures, not actual sales figures. The album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band seems to have sold around 5 million in the UK according to such sources as this, but don't forget that during the time when most of The Beatles' albums were selling, the UK didn't have a certification-system. It was established in 1973; therefore, most of their sales have gone uncertified including the album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. When you go over The Beatles' certifications in BPI's certification-database, you can see that BPI has certified only some portion of the units sold. In other words, albums that were released before 1973, but continued to sell after '73, were certified for units that sold after the year the BPI certification-system was established.--Harout72 (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Nana Mouskouri legend.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nana Mouskouri legend.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Nana Mouskouri legend.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Whitney Houston has sold 200 million records

with all due respect, Whitney is the world's best female singer in history and her records stand at 200 million.... here the sources... thank you...182.0.74.109 (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2101330/Whitney-Houston-death-Stacy-Francis-catfight-cougar-lover-Ray-J.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57378141/whitney-houstons-financial-worth-after-death/

Why 15% and so on

How are the percentages for artists before certain years figured out? Why 15% or more being backed by ceritifcations and not 10% or 5%, why not 16 or 20%? I don't get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.168.187 (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Refer to this archived discussion.--Harout72 (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Why 50 million?

Why not only list those with 100 million and more? Krystaleen (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This very page does list artists with 100 million and more only. Anything below 100 million that and over 50 million is on the Page 2 under See also. There are a lot of important bands/artists with 50 million and more, but below 100 million that we don't want to omit inserting.--Harout72 (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I was talking about the second page. Is there a unified talk page? I think we don't need that second page. I know there are many notable musicians who didn't sell 100 million but since this list is about best selling musicians and not important/notable musicians I think that doesn't matter. Krystaleen (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they both used to be just one single page until about a month ago, but I had to split them into two due to its massive size. The load/save time has become unbearable. What we may need to do about the second page is change the title of it into something that doesn't necessarily mention anything about best-selling.--Harout72 (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Change the title? Then it'd be a whole different list. If the title doesn't mention "best selling" yet the content is about best selling wouldn't it be a bit misleading? My suggestion is just make something that lists notable musicians and remove the 2nd page altogether. Krystaleen (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This is what I mean in the previous discussion. Why don't we only list just like 100 million or more, instead of splitting the page. It would be better and also easier to update the certified sales. Besides, I feel odd to see the main page of artists like Taylor Swift or Christina Aguilera claiming they're among the best-selling of all time, while in fact they are not even in the Top 50. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

How can we delete the Page 2 when it includes such names as Shania Twain with 71 million in certified sales, or Rihanna with almost 75 million in certified sales (and I'm not a fan of either)? Taylor Swift in her turn has over 47 million in certified sales, which is quite impressive I think. Let's bear in mind that in the 100 million section, lot of those listed haven't actually sold anything near that figure including Scrorpions and Dolly Parton. I personally don't think we should consider deleting the Page 2, but if you feel that we should leave the title as it is now, that's fine. After all, why suggest that best-selling list should start at 100 million and not below that mark?--Harout72 (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't matter. If they haven't reached 100 million then they're not in the list. Simple as that. The reason I suggested 100 million is because the page is so massive. You said it yourself that you had to split it in two because it was too big. If there were a gazillion artists who have sold over 500 million then I'd suggest that number instead of 100. Now if you think there are artists who haven't sold 100 million and yet they're listed in the 100 million and up then they should be removed. Maybe we should request for comments? Krystaleen (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't understand me, the page was massive before it was split. The Page 2 and the first page were originally a single page. Now that they've been split, their sizes are quite manageable. Your next point: We've designed a system requiring certain percentile of certified sales, see the second box from top at the talk page. Based on that system, lot of artists are not permitted on the list due to not having enough certified sales. That system has been put into work for over a year now, and seems to do its job well. You need to have solid basis for removing artists such as the current certified-sales-requirement, otherwise, removal often times results in endless and unproductive discussions. Finally, request comments for what? Have we officially begun discussing something and disagreed upon? Because that's when you request comments.--Harout72 (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I know what you meant, the page was so big that you had to split it in two. My point was instead of splitting it in two and moving all the artists below 100 million mark to page 2, you should've just removed them. And you're beginning to contradict yourself here, if you think the system is well then don't say there are artists who haven't sold 100 million and yet listed in the 100 million list. If there are, it means the system is flawed. And yes I think we are currently discussing something and disagreeing. Although yes maybe the request for comments thing was a little bit premature. Krystaleen (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Because the list was massive, that doesn't mean I should have removed artists/bands below the 100 million, especially when they've been part of the list for many years now. As I mentioned above, lot of them, below the 100 million line do deserve a place on the list due to their high certified sales. Based on my experience here on this list which is now years, consistently, the system that we have currently works better than not having any method at all, which was the case before, which constantly resulted in long and unproductive discussions. Lastly, wishing to see the Page 2 deleted only because you don't think artists with less than 100 million records should be called best-selling is a weak point. I don't believe that requires a request for comments as that's just your personal wish.--Harout72 (talk) 07:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that's my original question. Why 50 million? Is there a criteria somewhere that 50 million is already considered "best selling"? Why not 25 then? Or 10? Why 50? Obviously this list of "best selling" is to broad now because it's gotten so big it requires 2 pages. 50 million is not that notable anymore now that there are so many artists who have sold that many. Krystaleen (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Why, why, why... because 50 is the half of 100. Is this what you wanted to hear? And why do you care about this anyway? You did not create those tables; it was heavy work, you know. So, what is the point of your comment? Explain. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 09:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read the entire discussion before asking such unuseful question. Those tables are indeed very hard work, everyone knows that. Previously, List of best-selling albums had criterion of 15 million copies sold at least, but now it has changed to 20 million due to the large size of the page. I think why don't we increase this page's criterion too, instead of splitting the page with title (page 2), which violate WP:TITLEFORMAT Bluesatellite (talk) 10:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:TITLEFORMAT is the reason why I was suggesting to change the title above. I think we should be clear on something here, the Page 2 is not going to be deleted as it is very well constructed and meticulously sourced. You don't suggest removal of a page for its size. What I'm going to do in the next couple days is experiment and get rid of the white space using hidden template in my sandbox first. If I see that the hidden template reduces the load/save time then I will implement those to both pages, then the two page can be merged. Just like before we'll have a single page. By the way, 50 million mark is a good number to start with as it captures notable artists. For the time being, I believe we've said enough of this.--Harout72 (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That's the answer I was looking for. You chose 50 million because it captures notable artists. But I still think the list could do with some trimming. Especially after Bluesatellite pointed out that List of best-selling albums went through similar situation and ended up raising its criteria. Krystaleen (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Iron Maiden's record sales are now out of date

Look, everyone's on about Iron Maiden - 100 million, 70 million, 75 million and so on. But none of these figures on now correct.

100 million is undoubtedly too large at the moment, but 70 million is now out of date. They have now sold at least 80 million records, as shown by these sources:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopfeatures/7915012/Iron-Maiden-doing-it-their-own-way.html http://www.ironmaiden.com/the-band.html http://www.rocktelevision.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=41:iron-maiden&catid=4:archive-special&Itemid=9 http://www.whatrecords.co.uk/iron-maiden.asp

So, would someone please change it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Hobson (talk • contribs) 21:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Iron Maiden have begun charting in 1980, their claimed figure needs to be supported by 21.6% certified sales per this list's requirements which is in the second box from top of this talk page. Their currently available 15.8 million in certified sales can support up to 72.7 million claim. For 80 million claim, they would need some 17.2 million in certified sales. However, their The Final Frontier album and their En Vivo! video have added some 332,510 to their certified sales in the past year or so, meaning their is a chance for the gap between the current certified sales (15.8 million) and the required certified sales (17.2 million) to get even smaller soon. Therefore, it should be OK to update their claim figure from 70 million to 80 million. But, we'd need a reliable source which uses the term Records and not just Albums as The Telegraph does. The other three sources above are not reliable, I'm afraid to say.--Harout72 (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Deep Purple's Addition

Hi friends. I didn't wanted to touch your nice table and I read that we should discuss the addition of an artist before adding it so, well, I'm writing you for adding, finally, Deep Purple into the charts.

According to the available numbers now, in the Deep Purple discography, they got around 12.7 million certified copies worldwide (which 9 million are from the US: A gold single, Smoke on the Water, 1,000,000 copies; 6 gold albums and 5 platinums). Adding to this 1.25 million from Germany, 1 million from France and 900,000 from the UK we would have around 12.1 million in totals and that's without the minor certified numbers. I've checked the numbers available in Deep Purple discography and, excluding the Argentinian numbers, which I couldn't found (that doesn't mean they don't exist) they are all correct ones.

If we accept the claim by Sueddeutsche Zeitung Magazin, one of the most important ones of Germany, where they say in an interview to Jon Lord that Deep Purple sold 80 million copies worldwide (here is the interview: http://www.picturedwithin.com/interviews/_I_int.html) ¿can we finally add Deep Purple into the best selling music artists, in the 80-99 million group? I think you are reasonable enough and, well, it would be cool to add them as a heavy metal artist into the chart. Anyway, thanks for your time, friends. Milikguay (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Germany has only 1.1 million certified sales, the U.S. has 8,550,000 certified units, France has 920,000 certified units, see (see this uploaded file for their detailed certified sales). The 80 million claim would work as it needs to be supported by at least 15% certified sales (or 12 million certified units), which Deep Purple have since they've begun charting in 1968. But the available sources need to use the term Records (albums, singles, videos) and not just Albums.. Unfortunately, Sueddeutsche Zeitung Magazin says albums only, whereas Deep Purple's certifications are on Albums, Videos and some singles.--Harout72 (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

annie lennox?

She had sold at least 80 million records and I do not see her name, thanks. Beggsie221 (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annie_Lennox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beggsie221 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

She seems to have begun charting as a solo artist in 1988 per Annie Lennox discography, meaning based on the requirements of the certified sales, she needs her sales claim to be supported by 32.2% certified sales (see second box from top of this page). In other words, her 80 million claim should be covered by 25.8 million in certified sales. I'll check to see if she has that much certified units.--Harout72 (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones' Ranking Doesn't Make Sense

I'm surprised that the Rolling Stones don't appear in the top 10, given their extraordinary success over five decades. For comparison's sake, the Rolling Stones had 7 number 1 albums in a row, which span almost the entire existence of Led Zeppelin. Add on top of that what the Stones did in the 1960s with strings of hit singles, plus what the Stones have sold since then (e.g., A Bigger Bang sold 5 million copies). The Stones have to rank above Led Zeppelin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.55.160 (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The ranking is based on available certified sales that must cover a certain percentage of the claimed sales, which is determined by the year in which the artists first charted. So everything is correct. Ich901 (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The method you're using may be *consistent*, but that doesn't mean it achieves the stated purpose of the article, namely, to identify the bestselling musical artists of all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.55.160 (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Def Leppard

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-friends/all-american-summer-concerts This source say 100 million records sold. Is Fox News reliable enough? --Jamcad01 (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Video files should not be used as they can easily be manipulated, yours doesn't work, by the way. Fox News is reliable, but we'd need a text version, and make sure that it uses the term Records and not Albums.--Harout72 (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you don't understand. If you scroll down the page a bit there is a typed section saying "June 15: Def Leppard

With 100 million records sold worldwide and two prestigious Diamond Awards to their credit, Def Leppard continues to be one of the most important forces in rock music." --Jamcad01 (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's just wait until we have the 100 million in a proper article by one of the news services. Anything published by Fox & Friends is not immediately a Fox News content, and that's what we have on that page. It's just a morning show.--Harout72 (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue

Over the last few years most official press releases, TV appearances etc have claimed Kylie's sales to exceed 68 million, though it is not often mentioned whether these are albums or combined albums/singles. "The Kylie Show" shown on ITV in 2008 claimed Album sales of 60 million and single sales of 100 million for example. However, this article shows claimed official certifications for some territories, Uk included, which says her total certified sales for combined albums/singles in the UK are 10.4 million. However, Kylie has recently been announced as the 12th biggest selling singles act in the Uk by the official charts organisation in the UK with sales of 10.1 million singles sold. Her album sales are at least 15-20 million in the UK alone bringing her total UK sales to around 25-30 million combined units. Add this to her "claimed" worldwide sales of 60million (though as already said official claims are much more) and her total worldwide sales should be over 80 million at the very least. Only one of the referenced articled makes any reference to sales so I am not sure why they are being used. There are many articles that do mention her sales that could be cited instead. All in all the "official" certifications cited in the article appear very low and unrealistic and therefore poorly researched.

The Kylie Show ITV Introduction

Official UK Charts company Kylie Article 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.75.72 (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The record companies must pay a certain fee to get records (albums, singles, videos) certified. The certifications are not automatic; therefore, Minogue's UK certified sales are different from her UK actual sales. Currently, in the UK, Minogue has 6,860,000 certified album units, 3,400,000 certified singles units and 175,000 certified video units. For her detailed available certified sales refer to this uploaded file that I've put together, all of which have been retrieved from the databases of the certifying bodies. Based on her available certified sales, the UK truly seems to be her biggest market.--Harout72 (talk) 00:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

188.222.75.72 are right. Extended discussion is here: User_talk:Harout72#Kylie. Whole this page (after changes by Harout72) is mistification. This page does not show "List of best-selling music artists", this page show only numbers of gold, silver and platinum CD's. You must change the name of the article, for example "List of best-selling music artists (only gold, silver, platinum certifications)" or this data moved to separate table, under the table of full album sales. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

No list of best-selling music artists, no mater how well-researched, or what criteria it uses, will be complete. What this list does is take reliably sourced claims for different artists' total sales and support them or give them perspective with certifications. No one's saying certifications are infallible or the highest authority. As Harout72 stated above, record companies have to pay a fee to get records certified.

This explains how, for example, "Somebody That I Used to Know" can sell 5 million copies in the United States and only get certified for 1 million, or how Parallel Lines can sell 20 million copies yet only have certifications amounting to 1.7 million due to the band's label not wanting to release sales data to certifying bodies (See this quote in the link: "in order to get multiple sales levels, the band eventually sued for royalties because of this").--Mαuri^’96 “...over the Borderline” 16:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Do not change the fact - this page does not show "List of best-selling music artists" (as the title says), this page only show numbers of gold, silver and platinum CD's. You must change the name of the article, for example "List of best-selling music artists (only gold, silver, platinum certifications)" or this data moved to separate table, under the table of full album sales (there may be two tables). Subtropical-man (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

That's right, the original research policy restricts what content can be added to articles, which is not the case with the main article that this information-box belongs to. This info-box is part of a talk-page which is based on consensus of multiple editors. Everything that is done based on the instructions in the info-box is supported by reliable sources, that is not original research.--Harout72 (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Where is sources for data (calculating and %) in this box? Subtropical-man (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Read up Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations. What's presented in the box is about converting units (Gold/Platinum awards into figures) and adding numbers. The percentages which are based on consensus, do not immediately reflect what's added to the list. They are merely used to determine which sources are the best to go with, and WP:RS states: The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context.--Harout72 (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please give the sources for "before 1975 are required to have their lowest available sales figures supported by 15% in certified units", "between 1975–1990 are required to have their lowest available claimed figures supported by 15–35% in certified units. (That is 1.33% for each additional year after 1975)" and other. That is one of many things to explain. What are this numbers? 1.33%, 15-35% and other. Why not 1.66% or 45-46%? Please, sources for this numbers. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You have already been given detailed explanation at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:List of best-selling music artists/talk mbox about everything that sits in the box. Others have tried their best also. There is no need for further explanation. In fact, any further disruptive edits from you, will be reported at WP:AN/I.--Harout72 (talk) 23:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)