Jump to content

Talk:List of best-selling music artists

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former FLCList of best-selling music artists is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 27, 2005Articles for deletionNo consensus
November 13, 2005Articles for deletionKept
June 4, 2006Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
September 2, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 23, 2011Featured list candidateNot promoted
January 4, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
May 28, 2012Featured list candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured list candidate

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2024

[edit]

Please Update AC/DC, Metallica, Black Eyed Peas, Killers and Post Malone Sales in Brazil https://pro-musicabr.org.br/home/certificados/?busca_artista=AC%2FDC&busca_tipo_produto=&busca_tipo_certificado=&busca_pela_gravadora=&busca_ano=, https://pro-musicabr.org.br/home/certificados/?busca_artista=Metallica&busca_tipo_produto=&busca_tipo_certificado=&busca_pela_gravadora=&busca_ano=, https://pro-musicabr.org.br/home/certificados/?busca_artista=Black+Eyed+Peas&busca_tipo_produto=&busca_tipo_certificado=&busca_pela_gravadora=&busca_ano=, https://pro-musicabr.org.br/home/certificados/?busca_artista=Killers+&busca_tipo_produto=&busca_tipo_certificado=&busca_pela_gravadora=&busca_ano=, https://pro-musicabr.org.br/home/certificados/?busca_artista=Post+Malone&busca_tipo_produto=&busca_tipo_certificado=&busca_pela_gravadora=&busca_ano= Carlosmarkos2345 (talk)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 15:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of credibility

[edit]

It is not a good article, it must necessarily be modified, in fact it was nominated for elimination and I agree and I did not vote because I was not aware, the quality of users who have defended maintaining this article is very doubtful, there is history, there are artists and this is not a fan page especially for Michael Jackson. The previous history cannot be analyzed from the current perspective, which is what they are doing, under erroneous assumptions, for this reason, in their respective times there have been institutions that were in charge of that, such as Guinness is an example and many more.

This List is highly discussed and the level of credibility is very low and we seek objectivity, to be frank, no one has sold more albums than The Beatles as a group and no one has individually achieved more global sales than Elvis Presley, Bing Crosby both with 1 billion albums . sold globally and Frank Sinatra has sold 500 - 600 million records globally, I am so impressed in the debates on Quora about the popularity of these guys, I should include Al Jolson who was the first artist to sell 10 million records globally. In the 10S, a surprising actor for the time, I also don't find Patti Page the best-selling female artist since the 50s, Julio Iglesias, world famous, in fact has been the best-selling artist in China, Cliff Richard must be included.

This list must necessarily include Bing Crosby, it's that simple and with the corresponding figures equal to Frank Sinatra. 2800:BF0:170:B69:7DA7:3C51:9B94:7138 (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of credibility? yes, I agree. However, I also would like to point out that it is a work in progress. I haven't been contributing lately due to the fact that some of the editors are still gathering information and learning about the subject at hand. I am a political science and history teacher with a law degree. Moreover, apart from engaging in tutorial services in my daily living, my level of education has also made me aware that when I ask certain questions about the nature of any political, history or current affair topic, the majority of the students may not be suitable to give me a response or are not aware of the different subjects at hand. It is, to reiterate, a learning process and a work in progress to be able to divulge facts through a cohesive, coherent grammatical or verbal accurate response based on factuality to any question. This is one of the reasons that I somewhat vociferously (without offending) defended maintaining this article. Moreover, I also agree with your point that "the previous history cannot be analyzed from the current perspective". And that we all seek objectivity based on trustworthiness and factuality. More and into the point, no one has sold more units than Elvis Presley as a soloist or The Beatles as a group. We know this; and both acts (especially Presley) have sold way over a billion records. Many of us have the documentation to prove it; I owned and have in my possession an incredible number of encyclopedic books and articles including but not limited to, as you stated, old copies of Guinness Book of World records dating back through the 1980's that will collaborate and agree on your point. However, getting back to the subject at hand; how many knowledgeable inquisitive people know firsthand, about this particular subject? let alone people or Wiki Editors who are still delving and gathering information about the complexity of this given endeavor? they may not be aware of who Bing Crosby was? Or Tino Rossi? who may have sold over 200 million albums and is one of the best-selling and mostly forgotten artist of all time. You mentioned Al Jolson and Patti Page, and their historical content. And we can go on and on and on. Yes, Frank Sinatra's and Julio Iglesias claimed sales are dubious and are in need of proper adjustments, perhaps through knowledgeable contributors like you who can point out certain discrepancies that need correction. All in all, and your points well taken, with all due respect, we need to give this article a chance to improve itself. I can also point out the faulty computations of the RIAA which only counts and tabulates certified levels. To be fair this applies to all entertainers. However, an artist such as Elvis Presley who has released so many units, loses millions in sales of albums and singles; for the RIAA omits in between levels of Gold, Platinum and Multiplatinum levels of sales certifications. If you combine all these sales including the albums which have not reached the 500 thousand thresholds needed in order to be certified, Presley surpasses by a long shot every other act away, including Garth Brooks and The Beatles who are being posted erroneously as selling more albums than Presley. And yet are we to discard or eradicate the RIAA best-selling list? Well so far everyone uses it as a reference, including but not limited to, The World Almanac and the Guinness Book of World records. In closing my friend, the Wikipedia's Best-selling artist list is a work in progress needing feedback from contributors like us so the Wiki Editors can make the proper adjustments and modifications for improvements so avid readers can obtain a valid reference from this article and page. Let's give them a chance. Victor0327 (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Record sales are a minefield, sadly. Perhaps industry measurement for record sales in their time was different, as it is today with the streaming era. We have people who believe record labels are the most trustworthy sources because they know firsthand their artists' sales, but we also have examples of record labels inflating sales for promotional purposes, or some have compared record labels' sales reports to COI. If we move forward with that approach, perhaps assuming that an artist like Crosby even sold 1.2/1.5 billion records "according to his label,"  we might infuriate others. Even if a claim came from a newspaper. We also have plenty of artists with reported sales of over 75 million but haven't been added to the list, and some are perhaps little known by average consumers, and those with higher claims, of maybe over 200 million, can surprise others, especially if they are above of artists like, idk, The Rolling Stones. Take additional examples, like a few albums with claimed sales of over 50 million in big markets alone, like China or India; if we add them to the best-selling albums list, someone else can dispute it too. With the increase of Chinese market and streaming figures, a hypothetical future example of an album or single selling over 150 million, can be also disputed; a similar situation occurred with a Chinese single "selling over" 50 million "sales" in the best-selling singles list. Back with this list, there exist artists with uncertified works, for sure. Both of you are welcome to elaborate how the list can be improved; perhaps, we could borrowed minor approaches from other existing lists, but will need a consensus to effect a major change/restructure the list. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and your point is also well taken. However, we cannot just dispute the validity of "all" record labels claimed sales, in this particular case, for one, namely "Decca" (Crosby's record label) by stating without irrefutable evidence that the sales have been inflated for promotional purposes. Also, and more and into the point, a major troubling issue, one of a handful, is being the omission of Bing Crosby from this Wikipedia best-selling artist list, as he has been omitted from this particular list. That is more than just troubling, it is irresponsible Wikipedia journalism. Let us consider some of the facts; 150 to 200 million sales from one single alone, according to an unaccountable number of reputable sources, that being for the single of "White Christmas" written by Irvin Berlin and recorded by Bing Crosby in the 1940's. This song was (as you are perhaps aware) a global sales phenomenon, to state the least. We cannot be just so dismissive for fear of infuriating others especially when there is an overwhelming amount of information contrary to the "inflated sales" point of view being replicated and used, by a handful of Wiki editors. It would also hamper the erroneous belief that Crosby's sales have been "inflated" by his record label for "promotional Purposes". Crosby's claimed sales stand at 550 million, way before Nielsen or SoundScan originated, (they were introduced in the 1990's) as you are probably aware, Crosby started selling records in 1926. We cannot just be so dismissive of the facts. Don't you think? Like the individual (whose brief I responded to) stated; "we cannot preclude the previous history from the current perspective" which is what got this article in trouble to begin with. We cannot, in all fairness, have this article be nominated for deletion again and again and sadly, again. Another major point of concern? is Elvis Presley's claimed sales. 500 million? really? this claimed sales consensus being reached by some Wikipedia editors whom with all due respect, reached a bogus consensus in the Presley Wiki talk page. Again, dismissing hundreds of factual documents and press releases, let alone RCA and BMG (Presley's labels) who both coincided with this Presley's unit sales phenomenon report. These Wiki Editors who are perhaps in all fairness, limited by knowledgeable circumstances have irresponsibly stated without fact or evidence that Presley' sales have been "inflated. I respectfully ask, is this ethical? also, is it for fear of infuriating who? perhaps and this is not an accusation; some Wiki editors, and not all, are lacking the essential knowledge about the subject at hand in order to formulate a valid conclusive determination. Well in this case that's understandable. It is as I stated, a learning process. But regardless, we cannot just, to reiterate, be so dismissive as to the point of just obscuring these vital issues. Presley's claimed sales of over a billion units in all formats have been factually established since the 1980's by hundreds of newspaper articles, magazines and press releases, including but not limited to, CNN, Billboard, Time Life Books, The Guinness Book of World Records and hundreds more of respected newspaper, magazine, and literary articles, let alone RCA and later BMG, (Presley's record labels) who vociferously defended the billion sales claims. They have concluded this argument with a factual thesis; correctly pointing out the 299 RIAA certificates awarded to Presley in the United States alone, for albums and singles, more than any other recording act in the history of music, that will dispute this erroneous "inflated figures" argument. In closing, I can amplify the errors that this list/article needs correction. However, I will stop here, thanking you for your response and professional courtesy, and for your invitation to elaborate on how this list can be improved. Once again, thank you. Victor0327 (talk) 11:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
150 to 200 million? All the reliable sources I've seen say 50 million. Richard3120 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are you doing Richard3120? Haven't heard from you lately. According to the RIAA its 50 to 60 million in the United States. Again, the RIAA was introduced in March of 1958, and only a fraction of these sales figures has been certified by the Recording industry Association of America. What's been computed in the USA from that single alone? 50 to 60 million. Globally, Decca (Crosby's label) has claimed sales of 150 million from that single alone. And, to reiterate, it is the biggest selling single in the history of recorded music. Victor0327 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So agree with you Victor ! 2800:BF0:170:B69:14AB:D80C:4403:2B80 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see the Guinness Book of Records state 100 million+ now. I still think 200 million is a stretch, though. Richard3120 (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Richard!! I had a whole bunch books and newspaper memorabilia growing up in the 1970's that believe it or not, father time literally destroyed what was left of the pages. I had old beat up 1970's Guinness book of world records that became old and raggedy. I wish I had them back. The information in question was in those books. it's a shame I cannot have them back. Regardless the seasonal tune of White Christmas by Crosby sold immensely and of course, it was playing on everybody's record turntable way back then especially during Christmas. I guess the exact sales will always be in dispute, but the sales were astronomical back in the day. Victor0327 (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding giving credit to companies like CNN, Time Life Books, and The Guinness Book of World Records, it is important to note that these entities do not track global sales of artists. Instead, they often replicate information seen in the media without independent verification. A recent example involved Madonna, who jokingly told Jimmy Fallon that she had sold 400 million records instead of 300 million. The following day, the media, including Guinness, reported this new figure without auditing its accuracy. The over 100 million sales figure for "White Christmas" includes all versions of the track, not just Bing Crosby's. It is unrealistic to think Crosby sold 500 million records since 1990 without dominating music charts, unlike Elvis and The Beatles. This topic has been extensively discussed, as seen in the page archives. Crosby is not included on the list because he lacks sufficient certifications. Although the introduction of the article once mentioned this, it was removed in favor of some who wants in the list unverifiable inflated numbers. Reliable sources that specialize in certifications do not support these claims.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Markus and I do understand the points being made. But let's not obscure the issues. Just because in your words Crosby lacks the certifications, does not by any means, established the fact that the purported claims made by Decca, or his other recording labels will state for the facts that his sales claims where all "inflated". Moreover, music did not commence in the year 1990. Nor Crosby as you have erroneously stated, sold 500 million records from 1990 to the present. No, Crosby started recording in the year 1926, his first recording hit being "I've got the girl". More and into the point, by the time he passed away in 1977, many reputable reliable sources had claimed sales for Crosby of 500 million to 900 million in sales. And of course, your point will probably be that there was never any independent audited global organization that tracked sales way back in the days of Glenn Miller, Bing Crosby and big bands such as the Ink Spots and the Tommy and Jimmy Dorsey orchestra. However, you cannot just dismiss the fact that he sold an astronomical number of records that obviously were not certified in sales. So, Markus does that mean that nobody bought records back then? and I am asking this question with the utmost respect. The Guinness Book of World records obtains or rather receives the purported information from reliable reputable sources. It is a book of records; no one can just disparage what's in the book with baseless claims; or claim that the book has no veracity or that its fraudulent in its nature. All the information that's in the book, including music sales data come from reliable sources. They also get their reference music data from the sales figures of record labels coupled with RIAA documentation, and so does Time life books and many news outlets such as CNN. They just do not make stuff up. And never mind, all the purported claims by reliable news organizations; they can be in your words wrong, but don't you think they can also be right? And much more to your point; How do you or rather the Wikipedia list/article track corresponding music sales? For the majority of the individuals, including musical pundits and historians, I have extensively engaged in conversation, or grammatical exchanges with, about this subject at hand, always state the obvious. That this respective list and article has little or no credibility. Now you overstate the same grammatical rhetoric that "this topic has been extensively discussed as seen in the page archives". Yet, by flatly dismissing it with the issuing of that often-repeated statement, you are in essence eradicating the credibility factor from this article. Don't you think? Another point of concern and one that is particularly troubling are the claimed sales of one Elvis Presley. In the aftermath or rather in the four months, after the death of Presley, an estimated 200 million Presley records were sold. In fact, RCA was using the pressing plants of other record labels to keep up with the demand for Elvis's music. Presley was selling millions of units intertwined in 8 track tapes, cassettes, albums, and singles. In 1981 RCA (Presley's record label) issued a national press release divulging that Presley's record sales had surpassed the billion-mark plateau. The first artist to do so. EMI later issued the same claim for the Beatles in 1985. Yet without evidence some of the Wiki editors have challenged these sales claims by using the same verbal dogma and demagoguery that states "the sales of Presley and the Beatles are inflated". I wonder if this is a common practice use by the editors of this article. And then, to add insult to injury so to speak, some Wiki Editors capitulate by always offering the same baseless argument that "reliable sources do not support these claims. Really? So, in closing what claims do you support? let me just conclude by stating the obvious; I would hate to see this article be nominated for deletion again. Us readers and contributors Markus, deserve better. Victor0327 (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Victor, I agree too with you 2800:BF0:170:B69:B963:C64A:8A65:D8D0 (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you my friend. but what's important is that we can all come together by making the proper adjustments and modifications and thus, prevent this article from succumbing to deletion. Victor0327 (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In base of ? Here they must eliminate those intuitions and erroneous assumptions and the absurd ways of classifying sales, do they include the RIAA as a parameter when their certifications are regional and partial? That doesn't prove anything. Guinness Records and the individual record companies are totally reliable entities. The veracity of Guinness is beyond any pseudo-intuition that they propose here. Bing Crosby has sold 150 million with just one single, but he wasn't popular for that song. In fact, Pistol 'Packin Mama by this artist or Accent thue the possitive were massive and still are, there is no bigger singles seller than Crosby, in fact Guinness also included this in 2000 and only Crosby's version.
You are wrong in many ways, Crosby had the most number 1 hits in the history of music, no one has had more number 1 hits and entered the charts 396 on the music charts Crosby sold more than 500 million before 1977, it was even published by Guinness, Crosby sales
They reached 1 billion before the 90s, even EMI reported that The Beatles had also reached this figure in the late 80s and Elvis Presley equaled 1 billion in the 80s, there is a lot of information that supports this, another inconceivable factor here. It is the fact that they reduce the sales of Elvis Presley, dear friend, Elvis Presley is beyond 1 billion records sold globally, the point here is that Crosby and Presley exceed 1 billion records, The Beatles are much further of the 1000 million also and as Frank Sinatra cited it and his reported sales were 600 million records sold globally in the 00s, currently I would not be surprised if Sinatra reaches 1000 million records currently, another of the best-selling singles of the story is My Way, even one of the most covered along with Yesterday or White Christmas
So let's start by modifying this list in particular, I would also have deleted the article because it has caused confusion and no one believes these figures, considering Wikipedia not very serious and credible, there are jokes and in contrast there are many Wikipedia articles that are brilliant but in fact this one is not. It is and what is also essential is to restrict Michael Jackson's fanaticism because this page is a treat for Michael Jackson fans. Their fanaticism is understood but this is not the place for it. They have their additional pages on Facebook, Instagram, X etc.
Clinging to Victor's suggestions to improve including and modifying this list, you should take it as the most understandable and kindest way of suggesting, because in my case I would have voted for its elimination, it is simply terrible and mediocre and I don't know to what extent it was made by ignorant people. with the greatest respect to all. 2800:BF0:170:B69:A4A7:6761:B32C:9B67 (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Guinness Book of World Records does not track record sales; instead, they rely on figures from record labels or media. For example, in 2006, they awarded Michael Jackson a plaque for his Thriller album as the biggest-selling album of all time, with 104 million units sold. This figure was later revised to 66 million and then 67 million after independent media outlets questioned its accuracy. Similarly, the 1 billion figure attributed to Elvis Presley's sales has been widely discussed over the years, and it's been over 11 years since we stopped using it here. Although there were discussions on the talk page about reinstating the 1 billion figure, it never gained traction until we updated Michael Jackson's sales to 500 million (from 400 million) and placed him above Elvis Presley based on total available certifications. Since then, some Elvis fans have nominated the page for deletion, revealing their intentions clearly in the deletion discussion and this very conversation.The record sales of 1 billion or 2 billion attributed to Elvis Presley are inflated, much like the claim that 1.5 billion people watched his Aloha from Hawaii via Satellite from 38 countries, when in fact the total population of those countries was roughly 1.3 billion at the time (1973), and the actual viewership was around 150-200 million."
We had a detailed discussion about this same topic three years ago, as you can see from this link. Additionally, a 2013 article in The New Yorker magazine examined the claims of top-selling artists like The Beatles and Michael Jackson, concluding that their reported 1 billion record sales figures are likely exaggerated. TheWikiholic (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Experts? Who ? Which pseudo-experts have stated this and how have they verified it, where is the proof you were?  based on deductions?
Second, it is not about Elvis Presley Fans, you cannot analyze the past with the current perspective as they said before, so please reserve that argument because it does not work here, Elvis Presley have sold more than 1.5 billion worldwide, there is data and conclusive information. 2800:BF0:170:B69:5C26:9624:139F:1B2E (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikiholic: Let me get this straight: in running into and reading your explanatory brief, perhaps I missed reading it yesterday, but nevertheless, and I do not want to mince or distort the wording, however, let me state this verbatim. You and your wiki editor counterparts increased Michael Jackson's sales from 400 million to 500 million placing him above Elvis Presley based on total available certifications? that's a hundred million in sales, that is more than the 89 million that the RIAA gives credit to Jackson for album sales in the United States. This is insane!! again, I cannot find the correct wording of virtual exclamation; but this is outlandish. Case in point: even though the RIAA uses a faulty computation method which establishes parameters in correlation to sales; they do not increase sales based on certifications. In other words, is the other way around. In order to be certified an album must reach a certain sales threshold, being 500 thousand for Gold, 1 million for Platinum, or 2 million for multiplatinum, again, in order to be certified. I have never seen an artist being raised 100 million based on total available certifications.
Most interesting, I may add that according to the RIAA, Michael Jackson has been posted at number 6, behind the Eagles Led Zeppelin, Elvis Presley, Garth Brooks and of course the Beatles, in album sales. Are you aware what this maneuver does to the credibility factor of this article? this is one of many reasons that this page has been accused of being "a Michael Jackson fan page" and without bestowing any more wood to the fire, has been nominated for deletion repeatedly. In closing, let us be honest and more trustworthy in making the proper adjustments and modifications in order to establish factuality within this article and listing directory. Victor0327 (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I was not involved in increasing Jackson's claimed sales from 400 million to 500 million. Secondly, the list is still largely based on the total available certifications of an artist and how much of them are streaming-generated in today's circumstances. They raised Jackson's claimed sales by 100 million, while his total available certifications have increased by 50 million. I'm sure Elvis will receive similar treatment once there are updates for him. Currently, there is a gap of 55 million certifications between Jackson and Elvis. Only 30% of Jackson's record sales are from the USA, whereas for Elvis, it is more than double. This is because the USA dominated the market from the 1950s to the late 1980s. Elvis' record sales are very low in non-English speaking countries, and he never toured outside of North America.
If you use Jackson's RIAA album certifications to question the credibility of this list, we might have to put Garth Brooks above Elvis, because, according to the RIAA database, Brooks has 23 million more certifications than Elvis.
Currently, Elvis Presley's total available certifications are 234.7 million units, while his claimed sales are 500 million units, leaving a gap of 265.3 million units. His total available certifications in the U.S stand at 199.650 million units, including 139 million units of albums. Elvis holds a record 101 Gold records in the USA, 57 of which are Platinum. Even if we count all Gold records as Platinum, it would add 22 million to his total. Similarly, if we consider all Platinum records as multi-Platinum or update multi-Platinum records by 1 million units, it would add 57 million, bringing his total available certifications to 313 million units (234.7+22+57). There would still be a gap of 187M units for 500M units, hence the 1 Billion figures is highly exaggerated. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well first of all, thank you for your response to my brief. And obviously, if you were not involved then hopefully you can accept a formal apology on my behalf. Now let us delve an examine in proper perspective by making the necessary corrections, adjustments and modifications, in accordance with the subject at hand. Presley does not have 101 gold records, but 117 gold records for albums alone; he also does not have 57 platinum awards, but 67 platinum awards, again, for certified albums alone. And of course, he recently eclipsed the Beatles for multiplatinum albums they had 26, and Presley has recently been accorded the record for 27 multiplatinum albums. This is a total of 146.5 million units of albums according to the RIAA and not the 139 million units of albums that you have erroneously pointed out and need to perhaps update. Now, not counting albums but singles, Presley has 54 gold, 27 platinum and 7 multiplatinum for a tabulated RIAA 50.5 million, of certified singles. This is the overall summation of the 299 RIAA certificates, more than any other act in the history of recorded music. And perhaps, again, the Wikipedia editors have overlooked this matter.
Now let me offer an analogy; Using the RIAA's faulty computation system: If Presley sells 10 albums with all of them reaching 800 thousand in sales, only 500 thousand, of each album will be computed and counted towards Presley's overall sales. The 300 thousand that is not counted or rather not computed from each album, will be omitted and discarded. In earnest, they will only count if the album reaches one million and thus be certified platinum then it will count as an increment towards platinum status and thus be computed and counted as a total sale. You probably as an editor know this. The RIAA only counts certified levels of 500 thousand for Gold, 1 million for Platinum and 2 million for multiplatinum. In other words, the in-between levels of Gold to Platinum and Platinum to Multiplatinum gets discarded and not tabulated nor counted towards the artists totality in sales. And of course, this faulty computation framework applies to all artists within the confines of the RIAA's faulty methodology system. However, in Presley's case whose labels have released so many albums and singles, he loses close to perhaps 30 million in album and singles sales from being properly computated and calculated in his overall sales. Furthermore, the RIAA only certifies albums and singles which have reached the 500 thousand thresholds. Any album or single that does not reach the 500 thousand echelon level will not be certified or counted. Presley has over 350 albums in the United States alone that have sold between 200 thousand to 499 thousand but have not reached the 500 thousand threshold or echelon level needed in order to be certified and thus computed in the totality of his unit sales. More and into the point, if you count the totality of Presley's album sales, he easily surpasses by a long shot Garth Brooks and the Beatles who in the estimation of many, including Presley's record label executives, have been erroneously posted ahead of Presley in album sales. This is one of the reasons that I dispute the validity of the 500 million claimed sales for Presley. I would concur with you on 500 million sales in the United States, but not worldwide. Especially in light of other sales that I have already pointed out to. Namely, in the aftermath and posthumously after Presley's death which RCA claimed sales of 200 million worldwide. Nevertheless, I will stop here divulging to you my friend, that this is, and will be an ongoing enjoyable debate. In closing, my friend Wikiholic, I would like to thank you, for your time and professional courtesy in responding to my brief. It was a delightful and engaging debate. Once again, thank you. Victor0327 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RIAA website still shows Elvis Presley’s certifications as I mentioned above, which you can see here. As I explained, even if we consider all the gold records that never went platinum as platinum records and all the platinum records as multi-platinum, updating multi-platinum records with one more unit, there is no way Elvis is reaching 500 million units.
As an Elvis fan, you might have noted that Elvis Presley’s record labels updated his certifications retrospectively in the 1990s, adding over 100 million RIAA units. According to Nielsen SoundScan, Elvis Presley sold 19.07 million units between 1991 and 2002, 37 million as of 2014, and 39.5 million as of 2018. These figures do not indicate that Elvis has sold 500 million units worldwide. However, you are echoing the claims of Elvis Presley having sold 500 million units in the U.S. alone, similar to what fans and historians like Nick Keene, Tony Galvin, and Ernst Jorgensen suggest. TheWikiholic (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what website you are looking at. And the factuality of the numbers I have previously mentioned are there, 299 RIAA certifications. I'll tell you what "Google" the question who has the most RIAA certificates and it will take you to the information that I gave you. The editors need to update this information. Contrary to your belief, I am a not a Crosby or Presley fan. I like to think of myself as an objective, nonpartisan realist who believes in facts. But regardless my good friend, the facts are there. Yes, I will state this without a doubt, based on the facts; that Presley has sold over one billion records. Once again, thank you for your response. Victor0327 (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Guinness Book of World records website has the correct information in question. 299 RIAA certificates. Victor0327 (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should Elvis's claimed sales figures be revised to 400 million then for the time being? Your point is very well researched and checks out in regards to his current available certified sales. Furthermore his certified sales are slightly above Elton John who is only claimed to have sold 300 million at most. It makes no sense for the gap in claimed sales between them to be 200 million when at most his certified sales only suggest that he's sold up to 350 million at best. Never17 (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four seasons: 100 million

[edit]

The Four Seasons (band) page says they belong in this list with 100 million. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's suggest ideas to change this article for the better and update it

[edit]

I am with some of the wikiusers who want to improve this article and reach a consensus that makes this article an article with updated and credible data. Improving this article has several obstacles:

  1. ) Many times the conversation is based on criticizing the things on which we do not agree or on criticizing the sources instead of based on finding things on which we agree and focusing the conversation from a perspective in which we help each other. to others.
  2. ) Record labels are indeed interested parties. To have a neutral point, we cannot accept only the word of the artist himself or his record label. That is the version of that interested party. On Wikipedia we would have to have at least two independent sources. But failing that, an independent source that does not repeat the data as an echo will have to suffice.
  3. ) The work, and the burden of proof, is on the shoulders of Wikipedians who want to improve this article. However, critics and those who "ask for changes" do not consider carrying out this work. They only demand that the work be done because they say so and that's it.

I think it is obvious that the number of artists who qualify to be on this list has surpassed the ability of Wikipedians to keep this list up to date. Many artists have references from decades ago and some artists that should be on the list are not even there. To solve this I propose several measures. We can talk about them and modify them according to the consensus we have.

A) Consider whether this list is just "physical discs" or "Album-equivalent unit". Both metrics are legitimate. The criterion of using "equivalent units" is the currently predominant criterion in the industry. Major certifying organizations and official music charts use equivalent units. A1) If this list is going to use only "physical discs" I propose that the text "claimed sales" be renamed to "claimed physical sales". A2) If this list is going to use equivalent units, I propose that the text "claimed sales" be renamed to "Claimed sales AEUs".

B) Clarify that "CD single" are not equivalent to "CD album". Selling a single is not the same as selling an album. Prior to the digital era, the IFPI counted three physical singles as an equivalent of one album. This is using an "Album-equivalent" to convert 3 singles to 1 album.

C) If people agree to convert singles into album sales, through the 3:1 formula, why do people not want to use the same logic to convert digital sales and streaming to albums? So, if we want to put "physical sales" in the article, I suggest that we list separately how many of those units are singles, and how many of those units are albums.

D) If an artist included on the list has figures that may cause controversy, but are verified with sources, make a breakdown of those sources to explain why the page has those figures. Allow the article to have paragraphs explaining the numbers.

E) This proposal is to raise the requirement for an artist to enter this list. Because this list already has several outdated artists and needs to include many artists with sales over 100 million albums, limiting the entry of artists should theoretically help artists already included on the list be updated in a way due. That's why I propose that the artists who enter this list have to have at least 100 million.

I mention @Victor0327, @Richard3120 and @TheWikiholic because I see that you are quite reasonable in your comments. If we don't agree on anything I've said, let's see if we can agree on any of the points. If we agree on at least one point, it would be progress. Paladium (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just finished reading and analyzing your points, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. An excellent idea. Victor0327 (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose removing claimed sales altogether and only listing available certifications. Most of the issues related to this and how its updated have to do with this claimed sales nonsense, and there being no standard criterion for vetting claimed sales and the sources reporting them. Instantwatym (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you would be removing 20th century "Legacy entertainers "with the highest claimed sales such as the Beatles, Presley and Michael Jackson, and substituting or replacing them with Drake, Eminem and Rihanna, who are some of the artists with highest certifications. This would be very controversial. Don't you think? Victor0327 (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Instantwatym I agree with you that we should give importance to certifications and that some of the sources used for "claimed sales" are very flimsy, but we can't deprecate totally the claimed sales. We should try to verify all of them and replace the claimed sales sources of newspapers (or tabloids) for claimed on music related specialized sources and official chart webpages.
I can agree with that, but as Victor says, lots of artists with millions of legitimate sales lived in a time with less regulated certifications. We have to be more cautious with the sources we accept into the page instead of banning totally the "claimed sales". Although this takes a lot more work.
About Drake, @Chasezt said in this same talk page 9 June 2024 (UTC) Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 47 that Drake's certified numbers were already inflated because in 2024 he has only certified less quantity than what is written on the page. We could start by reviewing the sources that are currently on the page, of the artists that are in the top 5 and continue from there. Paladium (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough as it concerns to legacy acts and older artists and trying to calculate their claimed sales. However for artists who debuted during the digital age, priority should be given to available certifications. For example it seems a bit ridiculous that Drake has over 500 million in available certifications but his claimed sales in this article are listed as less than half of that. Such a discrepancy between claimed sales and available certifications may be acceptable for legacy acts where certifications were less regulated or not available in most regions, but it is not for newer artist. Instantwatym (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible, because if you only consider the certifications, the list would be even more phallic, erroneous and mediocre, and I repeat, you want to overevaluate the past with current perspectives that were previously non-existent, and as they said before, that is impossible.
Now what is a reality is that the first 4 places on this list should be headed by The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Bing Crosby (tie with Elvis or Elvis above and Crosby below or vice versa), fourth place Frank Sinatra, followed by ABBA. Julio Iglesias, Nana Mouskouri or maybe Iglesias before ABBA.
We cannot assign the certified sales beforehand because there is no entity that calculates this. Furthermore, they are relatively new entities and with this I return to the topic that no one other than the record companies themselves have the real values ​​of the sales of each artist, so the most that is has attributed to each artist in claims is the most correct and accurate measurement.
This must start now! 2800:BF0:170:B69:5981:5EC4:1943:3AD7 (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your knowledge, understanding and acuity about this subject are extraordinary. Moreover, entertainers such as Nana Mouskouri, Abba and of course, Crosby and Sinatra as you have correctly pointed out, should be recognized on everyone's best-selling artist list. And yet to quote Paladium, we have to analyze all points and "if we can agree on at least one point, it would be progress. We somehow need to formulate a consensus in how we are going to improve this article's directory list. Furthermore, the proposal to raise requirements as Paladium correctly suggested to 100 million in sales, would theoretically assist us through this endeavor. In closing, more constructive feedback from all contributors is essentially needed. This is progress!! Victor0327 (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article in its present state, where claimed sales figures are prioritized over certifications, for the benefit older/legacy artists is also quite erroneous. It undermines artists in the digital age with much higher sales figures through certifications for the sake of implying that older/legacy artists have higher sales. If someone wants to keep claimed sales for older artists due to an absence of certifications at that time then so be it. But for newer artists there shouldn't be a significant difference between claimed sales and available certifications, where the certifications are much higher. If such a discrepancy exists, then the lower claimed sales figures should be removed. Instantwatym (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are well taken; however, in trying to resolve this matter; it, nevertheless, reminds me of the state of our current political environment. Whereas, we have created such a schism that it has a made our nation so divisive and stagnant, to the point, that nothing gets done. In earnest, our political climate has become so polarized that it has impeded and hindered us, to successfully address and resolve any issue, that would alleviate the plight of so many Americans. Let me sum it up this way; we cannot come together as a people or as a country anymore in order to resolve anything. This is sad!! And yet getting back to the subject at hand, we cannot undermine for the sake of "implying the claimed sales of older/legacy artists or undermine artists in the digital age. So, with all due respect, in trying to appease both sides, let us try to valiantly strive to formulate some type of accurate measurement that can be agreeable to all sides. Furthermore, to improve this listing directory regardless of the insurmountable odds and obstacles that we are confronting in the present format. Let us continue with the different and irrespective ideas of all contributors and knowledgeable Wiki editors. Victor0327 (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we keep talking and talking here in this page and don't make drafts or suggestions to the text that are practical and do with this article. The questions I put before can be taken as a vote.
A) just "physical discs" or "Album-equivalent unit". Vote A or B. Don't make an argument.
B) We want to apply the 3 singles 1 album rule to count 3 CD singles as 1 CD album or not.
C) We want to check "singles" and "streaming" into the main amount of albums or we want to show them separated.
D) Paragraphs explaining the numbers instead of only tables. Yes or no.
E) Rise the requirement to 100 millions. I don't know if we can do that or no. Because there are lots of artist already on the list and the current number of 75 millions is a consensus currently.
My opinion on this is:
A. Album-equivalent unit. B. Whether to apply the 3:1 formula from singles to albums. C. I want total album and streaming to be separated in different columns. D. Add a paragraph explaining the numbers when neccessary. E. Rise the requirement, yes.
I think we do not have a qualified majority (inside this conversation, currently) to say that what we approve in this conversation will be accepted by other users who edit the article. Still, I would like to invite those people who are veterans at editing this page and anyone who wants to participate to contribute proposals on the structure of the article. Not just “include this artist” comments.
I was reading Wikipedia:Record_charts#WP:GOODCHARTS which explains which pages are good for looking at record industry figures, and many pages don't say the number of records, just the position. For example:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240408112900/https://www.billboard.com/charts/current-albums/
it doesn't say sales, even though the page title is "Top Current Album Sales."
There is this list: List_of_Billboard_200_number-one_albums_of_2024 and similar pages in Wikipedia. They keep sales week by week.
This website https://hitsdailydouble.com/sales_plus_streaming makes a sales list that contains Physical albums, download (TEA), streaming (SEA) and total.
I couldn't find this page among the list of non-recommended pages, so I guess we can use the estimates like any other journalist.
Seeing this, I propose that we clarify if this Wikipedia page is going to include only physical albums or both.
Top_Album_Sales is Billboard's chart that tracks physical album sales. The main list combines all music sources. Paladium (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We must begin by modifying this article, first correcting the clearly incorrect order, including Crosby in second or third place. Crosby is possibly the greatest record seller in history with 1 billion records sold worldwide, and Elvis Presley equal or greater than 1000 million records sold I have reviewed as many references as possible to avoid making mistakes on this.
Frank Sinatra's sales easily exceed 600 million records sold worldwide and not the erroneous figure of 150, ABBA sold 210 million records in 1979 according to Guinness million records sold globally, Guinness also cites Julio Iglesias with 300 million records worldwide sold in 1983, currently Iglesias has sold 500 million records and ABBA more than 500 million, conducting an exhaustive investigation of Nana Mouskouri.
For now the correct order would be
1) The Beatles > 1000 million exceed the figure by a large advantage
2) Elvis Presley = Bing Crosby: both > 1 billion nightclubs
3) Depending on Crosby third or vice versa.
4) Frank Sinatra > 600 million nightclubs
5) ABBA > 500 million nightclubs
6) Julio Iglesias: 500 million nightclubs
So far that is the exact list. 2800:BF0:170:B69:EC02:CA57:44B8:E066 (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you 157.100.143.88 (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we all agree. There is no getting around this. However, let us somehow through constructive feedback be able to make the proper modifications and adjustments to make this list/article valid and all-encompassing, with honesty objectivity and factuality. This list/article cannot be compared on the same level with "chartmasters" which is not a reliable source and thus has little or no credibility. The only way to improve this list is to come together through consensus and to volunteer your services as a contributor by giving everyone ideas in the formats to improvements. Let's suggest ideas to change this article for the better and updated it, with decency and respect toward all different ideas and opinions. Victor0327 (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Billion sales figure is proven to be inflated, and comes from the media equating album sales to 6 single equivalent units. This is widely explained upon in articles at the time where the press would state the real sales of the artist and then their "unit sales" by equating album sales to single units.
So we can disregard those right off the bat. Adding up the certified sales and claimed sales when noted for every Beatles album (studio, compilation, soundtrack etc) listed on their discography page results in around 234 million units.' They were claimed to have sold just over 100 million physical singles, and have not been certified in the US for their digital singles. However this if we were being strict about the claimed sales, still would not add up to 500 million. This can also be applied to Elvis Presley, Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, Michael Jackson and Led Zeppelin who have massive gaps in their certified sales and claimed sales even when using claimed figures for each album
So there is a argument to be had for going solely by certified sales. A method that may work is possibly creating separate sections for Legacy artists who were active during the 1950s up until 2000 and another for modern musicians whose records were primarily released during the streaming era. This way for Legacy artists they would be ranked based on certified record sales and we would not have to worry about inflated numbers that nobody agrees on. Never17 (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot without formulating a valid consensus resort without evidence that "the billion sales figures are inflated". Many Wikipedia readers and contributors have vociferously argued to the contrary having an uncountable amount of documentation stating otherwise. This grammatical rhetoric has created a hostile and angry environment within the confines of this article among readers and contributors. Moreover, establishing flawed applications which I admit, I was not aware of, such as the application of 3:1 from Singles to Albums adjustment that would, as "Wikiholic" correctly pointed out to, decrease total certifications from any artists is problematic. This fallacy would add hostility to the present climate in which all of us are experiencing, that in essence, got this page nominated for deletion repeatedly. No, we need to correctly establish a framework in which we can all come together to factually update this article for the better. As I previously stated, music did not begin in the Nielsen/SoundScan era. In fact, the RIAA started certifying sales on March 14th, 1958. Perry Como being the first artist to have a single certified by the RIAA for the song title "To catch a falling star". The soundtrack for the album Oklahoma, being the first album to be certified. Even then, not all sales were certified automatically. And most of all; anything before that, including Glenn Miller's music whose Chattanoga Choo Choo single, being the first song to receive a gold record award by RCA has been discounted in sales, due to the erroneous mentality factor that the song or (any disc) from that era was not certified. So, with all due respect, an argument for going solely by certified sales must be discarded. Again, we all want honesty, factuality and trustworthiness. Furthermore, applying the framework of different categories or columns pertaining to claimed sales/total album sales/singles/physical sales of albums and singles/streaming sales of singles, etc... would only add to the confusion. Stating all these fallacies, what can we propose to establish credibility? It's an uphill struggle!! but again, going solely by certifications would only add to readers questioning our knowledge and legitimacy. Victor0327 (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you are right, it's very difficult. I guess we could keep what we have now with the claimed sales and certified sales. The order is decided by whomever has the most certified sales and if one were to have their numbers significantly go up we'd discuss revising their sales figures. That works, but the matter is regarding revising the figures for Drake and other streaming acts to reflect their pure record sales Never17 (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed!! Victor0327 (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like i can believe some of the numbers and come up with how they get them quite easily. Like the Beatles, if i double count each album's multiple disc units they'd have around 335-340 million albums. Plus the 100 million or so claimed physical singles, that's 450 million plus and then with whatever digital singles close enough to 500 million sales right now. With the sales of the individual Beatles members that's over 600 million which i assume is how they arrived at that figure Never17 (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and whatever your constructive feedback intertwined with a good and sound point of view is; in earnest, I just want to improve this article and listing directory. As "Paladium" correctly stated, if we can agree on some points and try to illustrate correcting the others with facts then we have made progress. Victor0327 (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to first figure out how to revise the streaming sales for Taylor Swift and other current artists into pure sales. Maybe we can look at when their claimed sales come from and then look through articles stating their pure sales since then and add it to the figure to arrive at sales numbers. I believe this would work well Never17 (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Taylor Swift it was claimed that she sold 220 million records worldwide by 2021. Billboard released figures of her sales in the following years stating that she sold approximately 32 million album units by the end of 2023. [1]
I'm unsure how album units are translated into pure sales however. Never17 (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? her sales are astronomical my friend. She has been labeled the "The Queen of Streams". But regardless you are right. Perhaps through veracity we must calculate her exact sales thoroughly, including Physical units. Victor0327 (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just being conservative since it's hard to translate streams for artists today to pure sales Never17 (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are you Paladium? let us start the process. My vote is for these resolutions:
A) album Equivalent Unit. I concur with you on this.
B) I also concur with you on the on the application to the 3:1 from singles to albums.
C) I would like different categories or columns as pertaining to total Albums/Streaming and perhaps Singles. Again, all separated as you suggested in different columns.
D)Explanatory paragraphs being indicative of the sales formats would essential.
E) Raise the requirements to the 100 million sales thresholds.
Moreover, if the majority like you pointedly stated does not agree, constructive feedback on the reasoning would assist us in this endeavor. Also establishing separate columns for Physical sales of albums and singles. Furthermore, give us feedback on how to proceed on the methodology of Claimed sales for the "Legacy 20th Century entertainers" as opposed to entertainers in the digital age sales as suggested by so many contributors and readers such as "Instantwatym". What do you think? keep me posted!! Victor0327 (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
D)Explanatory paragraphs being indicative of the sales formats would "be essential". (sorry Typo) Victor0327 (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well then let's vote because this phallic article cannot continue.
I support that for artists of the 20th century they are based on sales that have been said:
The Beatles more than 1,000 million but here it is important to mention that Elvis has sold more than 1,500 million records worldwide based on singles, albums in fact, as Victor said, he is the best-selling artist but he rivals Bing Crosby who has sold more than 1,000 million. of records worldwide up to its maximum 1200 million sold globally only Crosby's White Christmas sold 170 million globally and its sales are extraordinary every year for this reason it is impossible to place the first place I have verified the amount of streaming that Crosby, Elvis, Presley, Beatles have , spectacular for old artists, I must mention with distinction Sinatra who in his high peaks has even achieved a number of listeners greater than 50 million.
In conclusion, sales of these types are beyond the sales that were declared decades ago.
They mentioned Julio Iglesias and in fact the guy has sold more than 500 million and currently received distinction in China for being the best-selling international record label in the place.
I vote for what I said and agree with the position of the list mentioned above.
1) The Beatles 1 billion
2) Elvis Presley 1000 million
3) Bing Crosby 1 billion
4) Frank Sinatra 600 million
5)ABBA 500 million
6)Julio Iglesias 500 million
7) Tino Rossi 400 million
8) Nana Mouskouri 400 million 2800:BF0:170:B69:EC02:4D7A:24B1:4645 (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it another way, I don't see that this conversation is going to lead to anything. So for my part I'm going to try to forget about this topic. Paladium (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't lose hope my friend!! The barometers that you have set I happen to agree with, A through E. Moreover, let us continue to strive and make this article better. Your points of Album Equivalent units coupled with applying the 3 singles for album rules are excellent ideas. Moreover, breaking columns into separate categories thus displaying different formats is also a very good idea. Explanatory paragraphs into different factions (physical units and streaming) can also be helpful in analyzing different perspectives. Let us continue for the sake of all contributors and avid music lovers. Victor0327 (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Applying a 3:1 ratio for singles to albums means that Elvis Presley's 50.5 million single sales would be converted to approximately 17 million album units. This adjustment would decrease his total certifications from 234.7 million to 184.2 million.
Meanwhile, artists like Drake and Chris Brown are known for releasing numerous songs and achieving high rankings based purely on their streaming numbers. According to the RIAA, Chris Brown has 18 million album equivalent units in the USA. His total RIAA units include 18 million EAS (equivalent album sales), 94.5 million song units as a lead artist, and 65.3 million song units as a featured artist, amounting to 177.85 million units.
If we apply the same ratio to Chris Brown's numbers, his total US sales would be converted to 71.2 million units (18 million + 53.2 million), which would not qualify him for a place on this list. TheWikiholic (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, my friend, for I was not aware of that. In earnest I was just trying hard to make everyone come together and try to find some type of amiable consensus. But regardless thank you for helping me understand this measure. Victor0327 (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe we should rank legacy artists based solely on their certified sales as it pertains to this article. Since it's impossible to determine how much they actually sold and it seems silly having claimed sales so much higher then what they are actually certified for, it would be far easier if they were ranked based on certified record sales. It would be much more manageable for editors, and completely unbiased to do away with the claimed sales entirely.
However for modern musical acts, they would have to be given a separate section ranking them based on their estimated pure sales. Since you cannot compare sales of artists from the digital era to ones from the past Never17 (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, as I understand what you are saying, you are in favor of this list being "pure sales". From both new and old artists. I think it would be illogical to accept the streams produced by Queen or Frank Sinatra songs and not accept the streams of modern artists. But if we accept certifications, many of these certifiers already count the streamings within the certified units. If we only accept certifications, we are using a "reputable metric" but we are at the mercy of certifiers.
Current columns on the table are: Artist (name), Country, Period Active, Release year of first charted record, genre, total certified units, and Claimed sales.
Most of these values on the values are used for an historical purpose. To use as context. Like how many years they were active and when they started charting. But in some way is strange.
If we want to include columns for separated "single" and "streaming", are we going to include that inside Claimed sales or are we doing a new column? Paladium (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I fail to understand to why we should take unconfirmed claimed sales figures from legacy artists as factual in the absence of certifications. When those sales are much more questionable and likely inflated. It removes all objectivity. If some unknown print publication from the 20th century had a quote about Elvis selling 10 billion with nothing else to back it up, that would probably be listed as his claimed sales figure here. Instantwatym (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, as pointed out this type of grammatical rhetoric is what got this page and article in trouble and nominated for repeated deletion. Music did not begin in the Nielsen /Soundscan era. Moreover, we cannot just be so dismissive as to state that the claimed sales figures from legacy artists are "questionable and likely inflated". Especially with so many readers and knowledgeable contributors vociferously arguing to the contrary with factual documents to boot. Remember, we cannot formulate a valid consensus without evidence. There is just too much documentation stating otherwise. In closing, this type of rhetoric and thinking, has created a hostile and unresponsive environment that has made this article lack credibility and reliability. An argument going solely by certified sales must be discarded, or we risk the fact of having no credibility and thus get nominated for deletion again. Is this what we want? Victor0327 (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult you guys are right. The problem is inflated numbers but at the same time some companies did not certify their acts beyond the promotional period, so their numbers might be far lower than what they've been claimed. So it's hard to find a balance between not being inflated and also not underselling them Never17 (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. We have to consider the totality of the circumstances, for all the reasons suggested. Victor0327 (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We return to the same point, YOU CANNOT JUDGE AND EVALUATE HISTORY WITH THE CURRENT PERSPECTIVE. You simply cannot say that they are inflated sales or eliminate credibility without an evidentiary way, they are all biases of judgment, you cannot deny credibility damn it from Guinness, Billboard etc, what idiots!
Friend, if you do not want to participate, excellent, no one is forcing you, from your response I can see that this article has been monopolized, they are providing apocryphal and uncertain information, the majority of us agree with the elimination of this phallic article, let me tell you that Tom Jones sold more than 400 million records worldwide.
I can only conclude that this is a page made by ignorant people with non-logical arguments and positions.
Queen and Pink Floyd have sold more than 300 million records, they mentioned that
The Correct and Complete list is:
1) The Beatles > 1 billion
2) Elvis Presley > 1 billion
3) Bing Crosby 1 billion
4) Frank Sinatra > 600 million
5) ABBA > 500 million
6)Julio Iglesias 500 million
7) Tom Jones > 400 million
8) Tino Rossi 400 million
9) Nana Mouskouri 400 million
10) Cliff Richard 350 million
Where is Pavarotti? Please! WHAT A MEDIOCRE LIST! 157.100.143.88 (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We return to the same point, YOU CANNOT JUDGE AND EVALUATE HISTORY WITH THE CURRENT PERSPECTIVE. You simply cannot say that they are inflated sales or eliminate credibility without an evidentiary way, they are all biases of judgment, you cannot deny credibility damn it from Guinness, Billboard etc, what idiots!
Friend, if you do not want to participate, excellent, no one is forcing you, from your response I can see that this article has been monopolized, they are providing apocryphal and uncertain information, the majority of us agree with the elimination of this phallic article, let me tell you that Tom Jones sold more than 400 million records worldwide.
I can only conclude that this is a page made by ignorant people with non-logical arguments and positions.
Queen and Pink Floyd have sold more than 300 million records, they mentioned that
The Correct and Complete list is:
1) The Beatles > 1 billion
2) Elvis Presley > 1 billion
3) Bing Crosby 1 billion
4) Frank Sinatra > 600 million
5) ABBA > 500 million
6)Julio Iglesias 500 million
7) Tom Jones > 400 million
8) Tino Rossi 400 million
9) Nana Mouskouri 400 million
10) Cliff Richard 350 million
Where is Pavarotti? Please! WHAT A MEDIOCRE LIST! 157.100.143.88 (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that ABBA sold anything close to 500 million is laughable. But it seems like there is pattern for inflating claimed sales of legacy acts on a whim, which is why they should be omitted altogether and legacy acts should be ranked seperately based on certified sales. Instantwatym (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree on this, at this point the best idea might be to just scrap Claimed sales entirely. That’s where the dispute comes, and we’d be no different than the best selling authors page which claims Shakespeare sold 4 billion copies of his works. Most of the numbers seem ridiculously inflated. Never17 (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion made by Never17 above to split the list between legacy acts and modern musicians and rank both groups according to certifications would be the most objective thing to do. Most (if not all) sales disputes arising from thist list have to do with dubious claimed sales figures. Instantwatym (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Media will generally cite pure sales figures for modern musicians anyway so it should be easy to figure how much they've actually sold. Never17 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a mistake to add certifications to traditional artists because they did not exist for many of them. I think that is not understood? and you still talk about objectivity, personally I respect your criteria Victor and the many users who are against this article and want to improve it but I vote for the complete elimination of this page because it is too erroneous and incorrect, I don't see the reason for it either. subject subject the article to the criteria that a few guys have established on this page, these guys can't imagine that people don't know how to edit Wikipedia otherwise the result would be different, and it makes me sad because they don't consider Wikipedia as credible that's it A shame because there are excellent articles.
ABBA? My dear new friend, how can you say it's ridiculous? In 1978, they sold 210 million records globally, Guinness said.
ABBA is popular worldwide, this page will unfortunately be deleted, the level of inaccuracy and fanaticism exceeds reality and objectivity, which is why it has no credibility.
I have forgotten Tom Jones and in fact there are many guys that I don't see, I don't see Ozzy Osborne and in fact Pavarotti as mentioned above.
The artists that have sold the most are The Beatles, Elvis Presley, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra to name the first places, that is an irrefutable fact! 2800:BF0:170:B69:7155:3135:9645:BD49 (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of us for a lack of better words have to be able to tone down the rhetoric, so to speak, and every rebuttal to any formal response must be consistent with respect toward the opinions of another, with decency and courtesy. This goes for all of us. Our main objective should be to somehow make this article with proper updates, modifications and adjustments be the best that it can be. If we can all come together and work for the betterment of improving this page and article, I do not see why it shouldn't replace the RIAA best-selling artist list with its faulty computation methodology. This is what I am striving for. I think we can accomplish this. We can separate sections or columns as an example for.
1. Top selling albums physical and digital sales in all formats:
2. Top musical artists by digital sales
3. Top Musical artists by Albums and singles sales
4. All-time best-selling musical artists by claimed sales
5. All-time best-selling musical artists by certified sales.
Also, music sales by formats and of course value. These are just ideas; again, we are not going to agree on everything, however I think this framework of separating entities into columns or echelons would alleviate most of our plight. Give me some feedback let me know what you think. Victor0327 (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, we can also have consensus discussions regarding claimed sales and adjusting the figures for specific artists based on how much they've been certified. So it stays within the bounds of realism and doesn't get carried away. However personally i think we should for simplicity start with 1 and 2 and then move onto the later when we have it all worked out. Never17 (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, my friend that is very important. And it's a start; We can adjust figures based on factors such as certifications, and then move from there. Moreover, is not perfect but to reiterate, it's a start. As we get consensus and feedback from others, as you have stated, we can make the proper adjustments. In closing, the consensus discussions are imperative. Victor0327 (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus regarding claimed sales i think it would be best if it was met before we decide to implement it again after we change this up. Never17 (talk) 03:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I just want to get everyone on board to improve this article/list. I guess we have to take "baby steps" or go in slow progression. What's important is making it happen. Moreover, concentrate on the issues that we could somehow agree and resolve, again for the betterment of this article. Victor0327 (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
100% Never17 (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright so how should it be formatted? For Singles we have "Highest Certified Singles" which relates to the best selling singles by certified sales prior to the year 2000. I'm thinking of something like this
Best Selling Artists
(The best selling 20th century musical acts, based on worldwide certified sales [physical and digital])
Best Selling Digital Artists
(The best selling artists based on digital sales and equivalent units)
Best Selling Artists of all time
(Based upon claimed sales from reliable media outlets - Work in progress)
There would need to be consensus regarding this last section, issues such as potentially inflated numbers, outdated references and the discrepancy between their claimed and actual certified sales. As well as the fact two artists with relatively the same number of certified sales should be listed at the same claimed sales figure. Never17 (talk) 07:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the perfect idea. Remember "highest certified singles" (always include) "streaming equivalent" singles as a format, and make sure everyone is involved with this measure. And why not albums? streaming equivalent albums by highest certified sales. Best-selling artist of all time to be included in the streaming equivalent sales (obviously they are still selling units) as an example, Presley, The Beatles and Michael Jackson. And you are right on the idea of 'The two artists with relative the same number of certified sales should also be listed at the same claimed sales figure to avoid any dispute in the validity of the sales. I think this would work. As you stated, we would need consensus and constructive feedback from all Wikipedians/Contributors regarding this last section but then again, as I stated previously "it's a start". Victor0327 (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of what you propose to separate physical sales and digital sales into lists makes sense. But I think that this solution is too different from the structure that the article currently has. I think we should seek the opinion and support of more editors who have permission to edit this article if we wanted to change the structure. Paladium (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you, my friend. let us hope that we are able to appease all sides and thus make the fundamental changes that are essentially needed in order to improve with different ideas this page and article's best-selling directory. Moreover, seeking the opinion and support of all editors is practically vital. Victor0327 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, a proper consensus amongst all editors should be reached before we proceed with the changes. Never17 (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, regarding the declared sales, the issue of inflation is speculation and not a true fact, so large claimed sales must be implemented. (We get nothing by hiding the reality, it is more than evident that no media has considered this source as reliable and has added the claimed sales, that should be more than enough for a call to change this article)
Based on this we must include Crosby, Beatles and Presley with the amounts that correspond to all of them 1000 million records sold worldwide, Elvis Presley even with the 1500 million records claimed, the same applies to The Beatles, Crosby.
Sinatra with 600 million as appropriate, mention ABBA with their respective sales, Julio Iglesias with 500 million, Tom Jones 400 million, let's include everyone.
Regarding certified sales, explain that the evaluation of 20th century artists is impossible under these parameters.
The best idea is to include the claimed sales since these are the determining factor for each artist and if you have certifications, enter them otherwise not and attach only the claimed ones. 2800:BF0:170:B69:7155:3135:9645:BD49 (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my friend, all issues considered. We cannot discount all the issues that need to be address properly objectively and factually. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The debates of hostility and anger on websites such as "Quora" and "Reddit" where many musical pundits, historians and contributors like yourself, have voiced their concerns about the little or no credibility that this article directory listing is presently experiencing, must be conveyed. I would not be doing this if I think this was a waste of time. We have to work on a proper consensus amongst all editors and contributors in correlation with all the changes and adjustments that obviously need transparency and modifications for the better. We cannot endure another nomination for deletion. The only thing I ask for, is for patience. Remember the historical saying "Rome wasn't built in a day, it began as a republic and then it became an empire". More and into the point, it's going to take time but in the long run, I think it will be worth it for all of us. And in closing, due remember that once we have all agreed and reached common consensus and accepted the final product; then to overly state that old Roman analogy that "once we have crossed that Rubicon there is no turning back". In other words, once we have reached consensus on everything then we must abide by all facets of the final product. This is why it's imperative for all of us to come together and contribute. Victor0327 (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard disagree, we already had those outlandish figures and consensus was made to remove all of them since they were disputed by editors in the past. There’s no validity to those claims especially ones made by the record companies, some other editor posted about how a article from Guinness World Records in 1983 states that “No independent sales audit was conducted on the global sales of Elvis or Bing Crosby, with most music experts disregarding claims of Bing Crosby selling 300m records or more as pure fiction” Never17 (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently this page is more accurate than it’s ever been, and i think by starting with pruning the dubious claimed sales which are where the conflict originates. Our problems will go away. Never17 (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well in all fairness my good friend, the individual who I responded to has an opinion. And more and into the point, why has this article been nominated for deletion repeatedly? Moreover, we are both in this together, and we have a lot of boisterous disagreements, coming from so many angry people who are disparaging our sales claimed numbers and, in all earnest, this must stop. We need consensus from everyone in order to obliterate the lack of credibility being voiced by so many. This is the reason that we are working for progress and not for deletion. I am stating what is factual, unbiased and truthful. We must come together and address issues of paramount importance. I am hoping that all editors and contributors like you and I, are able to recognize the serious flaws that we are confronting and address them. Some may state that the sales are inflated, however many others may not, and most of them have documentation that states the contrary to your point. And remember, this "inflated sales" without substance rhetoric, was what got this page in trouble to begin with. I am hoping that we can respect the opinions of others who refute your point and perhaps mine and debate this issue with an open mind through a viable consensus. Again, it's a start, and the individual who I responded to, in his brief has a right to grammatically voice his opinion. it's about coming together and reaching some type of an agreement if we can. Don't you think? Victor0327 (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair Never17 (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I value your impartiality and trustworthiness. Victor0327 (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In no media has it been stated that Crosby's sales are fictitious friend, please do not invent things, Crosby sold 300,670,000 at the end of the 60s, by 1973 more than 400 million records and in 1977 he sold 500 million Guinness called him the artist who has sold the most records in the world and the most successful, as Victor said, Crosby has sold 550 million records before the arrival of the 80s and by the 90s he had reached 1000 million records sold worldwide, Crosby sold 170 million Only with White Christmas, that only version was also published by Guiness.
What Pseudoexperts are you talking about? There is none, in fact they all come to the conclusion that the sales of Crosby or Presley are astronomical.
When Crosby and Presley died, the record companies could not meet the number of orders requested from both of them, postponing delivery until 1978, it even made headlines in the New York Times.
So please I ask you to respect the story and investigate more because due to biased and erroneous criteria like yours based on assumptions this page has caused controversy and has been a candidate for elimination, in my case this page should be deleted.
Regarding the declared sales of the artists, they must be added whether you like it or not, here we are not trying to please tastes, we are looking for objectivity because this page has become a set of Michael Jackson fans and there is no such thing for it.
The fact that they place Jackson above Presley, Crosby, Beatles, Sinatra, ABBA, Jones Iglesias calls into question the veracity of the page.
The list
The Beatles >1000 million
Elvis Presley > 1.5 billion
Bing Crosby > 1 billion
Frank Sinatra > 600 million
Julio Iglesias > 500 million
ABBA > 500 million
Tom Jones > 400 million 2800:BF0:170:B69:7155:3135:9645:BD49 (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have to definitely reach a formal consensus through a vote between editors and contributors alike and whatever decision is rendered, we all must abide by it. Nevertheless, all opinions will be respected through mutual accord by everyone concerning this matter. I guess I'll call it a night!! Victor0327 (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Victor and the other users, the declared sales are what determine the whole, the certifications are too imprecise, the formulas that have been applied on this page are subjective and trivial.
The real question is who sold more albums, Elvis Presley or Bing Crosby? Both have massive worldwide sales, I have evidence of Elvis Presley records made in Iran, India under local brands, that is, pirates, also Bing Crosby records made in Saudi Arabia, India, Ecuador or Russia under local brands, that is, they are also pirates (no record is Christmas). Rather, it is impossible for them to use formulas or base this on RIIA because it is impossible to determine global sales with the current situation, it is more feasible but before there was no streaming, so you had to buy records or go to the movies, and they were the only means of entertainment.
Presley's sales widely exceed 1.5 billion records and Crosby's sales exceed 1.2 billion records, both without piracy, with piracy the figures are incalculable.
The same applies to The Beatles, Frank Sinatra, Rolling Stones, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd or AC/DC. 2800:BF0:170:B69:7D59:9F88:FF0F:E407 (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US sales of Whitney Houston

[edit]

Are certifications for "The Bodyguard" soundtrack included in US certified sales of Whitney Houston? Angiricc05 (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes TheWikiholic (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Grande

[edit]

@TheWikiholic So you reverted my edit, because of you needed a more reliable source. Sadly there are not many sources about her record sales in general. It's a bummer, because Grande has more certified sales than other artists in that section. 90 million should be the least, as her certified sales should put her easily at 150 million records.

The sources I could find: https://www.sportskeeda.com/us/music/did-ariana-grande-win-grammys-singer-s-awards-achievements-explored Says 80-90 million. Sadly its source has no Wikipedia article.

https://kiss951.com/listicle/ariana-grande-5-most-powerful-songs/ Not more reliable than Screen Rant, but at least that source says exactly 90 million, and has a Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNKS Mirrored7 (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sportskeeda isn't a reliable source and I'm not sure how reliable the second one is for record sales TheWikiholic (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheWikiholic Well, for artists like Post Malone and Justin Timberlake random television stations like "KYTV" or "KHOU" are used as sources too, and I doubt they are much more reliable than the source I gave in. Mirrored7 (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An individual editor opinion about a source supposedly being unreliable does not hold much weight unless there is prior discussion and general consensus about said sources being unreliable, which isnt the case with the sources you presented. The kiss951 source you posted is under the umbrella of iHeart which is considered reliable. Restore your edit if you wish and if challenged again by the same editor you can reference this talk page discussion where they are outweighed 2 to 1. Instantwatym (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks! Mirrored7 (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Consensus: Page layout

[edit]

All of the editors in favour of the splitting up the page between Legacy artists and modern musicians like previously discussed, getting rid of the claimed sales and instead ranking them each based on certified sales or some variation of this. Say yes, if you aren’t supportive of this say no. Never17 (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed layout would look something like this
Best Selling Artists
(The best selling 20th century musical acts, based on worldwide certified sales [physical and digital])
Best Selling Digital Artists
(The best selling artists based on digital sales and equivalent units)
We would only have the certified sales listed, no claimed number of how much they allegedly sold Never17 (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In no media has it been stated that Crosby's sales are fictitious friend, please do not invent things, Crosby sold 300,670,000 at the end of the 60s, by 1973 more than 400 million records and in 1977 he sold 500 million Guinness called him the artist who has sold the most records in the world and the most successful, as Victor said, Crosby has sold 550 million records before the arrival of the 80s and by the 90s he had reached 1000 million records sold worldwide, Crosby sold 170 million Only with White Christmas, that only version was also published by Guiness.
What Pseudoexperts are you talking about? There is none, in fact they all come to the conclusion that the sales of Crosby or Presley are astronomical.
When Crosby and Presley died, the record companies could not meet the number of orders requested from both of them, postponing delivery until 1978, it even made headlines in the New York Times.
So please I ask you to respect the story and investigate more because due to biased and erroneous criteria like yours based on assumptions this page has caused controversy and has been a candidate for elimination, in my case this page should be deleted.
Regarding the declared sales of the artists, they must be added whether you like it or not, here we are not trying to please tastes, we are looking for objectivity because this page has become a set of Michael Jackson fans and there is no such thing for it.
The fact that they place Jackson above Presley, Crosby, Beatles, Sinatra, ABBA, Jones Iglesias calls into question the veracity of the page.
The list
The Beatles >1000 million
Elvis Presley > 1.5 billion
Bing Crosby > 1 billion
Frank Sinatra > 600 million
Julio Iglesias > 500 million
ABBA > 500 million
Tom Jones > 400 million 2800:BF0:170:B69:7155:3135:9645:BD49 (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal to alter the article to inflate artist sales is not based on reliable information and seems to be an attempt to promote artists artificially. This article has been online for about 20 years, with the current consensus being the result of many discussions. The validity of the suggested changes needs to be verified by the main editors of the page, as similar proposals in the past.
Michael Jackson fans damaged this article some time ago, causing the only user who proposed to update the article in all countries to stop posting. This new proposal from you is another one of those desperate attempts by fans to want to validate their favorite artists at all costs. You and the user who was banned from Spanish Wikipedia for creating profiles every time he was blocked, to inflate Bing Crosby's sales, just talked to each other.
There is no need for changes, as the latest consensus, which was carefully reached and not sudden, is still valid. The attempt to insert artists who pratically do not appear on charts in any country, such as Bing Crosby, Nana Mouskouri, Tom Jones and so on is disrespectful to the page and its editors. Changes based on personal opinions and without reliable (certifications) backing should not be implemented, thus preserving the article's integrity and accuracy.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think simply using pure certified sales is the easiest method for editors, the least controversial and the best way to manage the page. Never17 (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Markus WikiEditor The only user who updated the page had the issues of WP:ownership, and if I recall correctly, multiple users, including admins recommended sanctioning a topic ban on that user. The way in which he stopped editing and deleted his mediafire account containing all the certifications that are listed on this list further proves those ownership arguments to be true. If those certifications were updated here in subpages instead of on his mediafire account, it would have been much easier to update this page.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a shame, i wish there was something we could do regarding this. Because that seems to be our best option Never17 (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Victor and the other users, the declared sales are what determine the whole, the certifications are too imprecise, the formulas that have been applied on this page are subjective and trivial.
The real question is who sold more albums, Elvis Presley or Bing Crosby? Both have massive worldwide sales, I have evidence of Elvis Presley records made in Iran, India under local brands, that is, pirates, also Bing Crosby records made in Saudi Arabia, India, Ecuador or Russia under local brands, that is, they are also pirates (no record is Christmas). Rather, it is impossible for them to use formulas or base this on RIIA because it is impossible to determine global sales with the current situation, it is more feasible but before there was no streaming, so you had to buy records or go to the movies, and they were the only means of entertainment.
Presley's sales widely exceed 1.5 billion records and Crosby's sales exceed 1.2 billion records, both without piracy, with piracy the figures are incalculable.
The same applies to The Beatles, Frank Sinatra, Rolling Stones, Queen, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd or AC/DC. 2800:BF0:170:B69:7D59:9F88:FF0F:E407 (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Elvis is only certified for 234 million units, 14 years ago he was certified for approximately 189.2 million worldwide with the US certified sales at 176 million. His certified sales in the last 15 years only went up 44 million. It's very unlikely that he will ever reach certified sales of 300 million as it would require another 70-80 million units. For him to reach 500m he'd need additional certified pure sales of 300 million since his streams are very low and not high enough to add a significant amount of equivalent streaming units. Never17 (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But listing artists based on the total available certifications means putting Drake over Elvis Presley. How come? Make it make sense! TheWikiholic (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, the only solution would be to simply separate the article and have one section for best selling 20th century musical acts and then another section which ranks the best selling modern musical acts. Kind of like the best selling singles page which ranks physical era singles separate from digital era singles Never17 (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. Legacy artists have lost millions of certifications because the certification systems during their peak were not as comprehensive as today's systems. Additionally, some record labels, such as Motown, did not share their data with certifying bodies, and records were often not certified after their promotional periods. For example, Michael Jackson's Thriller sold 2 million units in Brazil by 2008, but it was never certified in the country. Similarly, the album sold 2.5 million units by 2009 but was only certified for 100,000 units.
Today's certifications are largely based on streaming. With the exception of artists like Adele and Taylor Swift, no modern artists have at least 50% of their certifications based on actual sales (physical and digital downloads). For instance, the RIAA awards Platinum status to songs that achieve 1 million units, which can include 150 million streams in the US, and Diamond status for those reaching 1.5 billion streams. Theoretically, if one song were streamed 1.5 billion times on platforms like YouTube or Spotify, the single would achieve Diamond status, and the entire album could be certified Platinum, creating a combined total of 11 million certified units without any actual sales. Kanye West's album The Life of Pablo achieved Platinum status without selling a single copy, being available only for streaming. Similarly, Chris Brown's INDIGO was certified for 1 million units by the RIAA in 2019, with only 84,000 copies sold.
Streaming and sales are not equivalent, even though certification bodies convert streaming into sales using various parameters. Streaming can be accessed for free to some extent, whereas sales require a purchase.
The current list is based on the total available certifications from physical sales and the era of the artists, reflecting the lack of certifying bodies at the time. This means that if two artists have a similar number of certifications, the artist who debuted earlier will be listed first. Those who believe that Drake has sold more than The Beatles, or that artists like Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, or Chris Brown have sold more than Madonna or Celine Dion, should create a separate list for the highest certifying artists.— TheWikiholic (talk) 06:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Thriller album is it's own can of worms.
Thriller sold 20 million after it's first 2 years and was certified 2x diamond. It wasn't certified for any shipments in the US for the next 5 years even though it literally sold 20 million in essentially 24 months and was selling at a pace of 1m per week. That's completely absurd and conventional wisdom would assume that it should have actually been at least 3x diamond by the end of the 1980s. Other albums such as Dangerous according to Billboard shipped 4 million in the US after just 8-9 days and was certified for those units. It only got certified for 2 million additional units the rest of the decade. That's nonsense.
He's really gotten shafted Never17 (talk) 06:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with doing a wikipedia page on "Highest certifying artists" and include only certifications and not sales. Would you support that page if we made it? Paladium (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe "Highest certified musicians" to delimit that the page includes only musicians. Paladium (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rankings could be similar to this List of highest-certified music artists in the United States but for the rest of the world and divided into albums and singles. And maybe divided into decades. When you divide a list on "only albums" and "only singles" (or do two columns, one for albums and one for singles), you can see clearly some differences @TheWikiholic, @Markus WikiEditor. And in this article (highest-certified), despite being outdated and needing more recent references, has some advantages over the article List of best-selling music artists. I think it could be updated to have more recent data. Most of the references are from 2020. And once updated, this could help writing an article for certified artists around the world and help update this article List of best-selling music artists. Paladium (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal opinion that streams =/= sales is irrelevant. They conversion and weighting exists for a reason. The relevant bodies would not be certifying singles and albums to gold, platinum and diamond status largely based on streaming if they didn't equate upon conversion. Moreover, if you are of that opinion that streams =/= sales then its best if you refrain from editing sales and available certifications for all artists on this list, which are updated largely based on streaming (more so for modern artists but streaming related increases in claimed sales and available certifications are also applicable to legacy artists on streaming platforms). Also I'm not sure exactly why you provided an anecdote about debut week pure sales of an artists album as not aligning with the streaming equivalent + pure sales of said album between the debut week and the time of certification. That's not really a point at all since everyone is aware that neither pure sales nor streaming equivalents are fixed to the debut week and are subject to increases over the lifetime of a project and that certifications are not based on debut week pure sales alone. Instantwatym (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Never: Where do you get that Elvis Presley's streams are low, that's false, look at the amount of streaming that Presley, Beatles, Sinatra, Bing Crosby, Dean Martin have, it's amazing! because they are old artists 40s, 50s 60s 70s, LOOK HOW MUCH STREAMING! it has "Queen" "ABBA", "Boney M" it's amazing! and no one has followed up on their sales, all of them are before Michael Jackson, it is impossible for Michael Jackson to have sold more than Queen or ABBA etc. and the streaming is proving it to you, their streaming is 42 million but it was valid until 2009 the rest of artists and groups disappeared in the 20th century.
In 2023, Elvis Presley's maximum streaming reached 37 million, Bing Crosby's 35 million and Frank Sinatra spectacularly more than 50 million streaming, do you look at the figures above? In 2023, Michael Jackson's maximum Streaming was 35.2 million, in 2024 we will evaluate it as soon as it is still missing.
People no longer buy records nowadays and streaming sales are no longer low because there is no need and that is a reality.
I also agree with the declared sales, @Paladium's arguments must be implemented up to this point, @Never they are based on assumptions and subjectivism, "I believe" does not work here.
I also agree that Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, ABBA are the best-selling musical artists in history. 2800:BF0:170:B69:7D59:9F88:FF0F:E407 (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, I also think it should be deleted, I have resisted its removal but there is no way to preserve it, as Victor, Wikiholic and many other users stated, they are using incoherent methods and formulas which has turned this page into an article that is too erroneous. 2800:BF0:170:B69:7D59:9F88:FF0F:E407 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 2800:BF0:170:B69:D0BF:BB59:7FE8:223D (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already had a discussion this page isn't getting deleted, you simply want conformation bias because again Jackson passed Elvis Presley after a consensus was reached and that's where all of the motions to get this page removed came from. It's not about authenticity. Never17 (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Never 17: That's a Good Joke, Michael Jackson has never outsold ABBA, Julio Iglesias, Tom Jones, even worse than "Elvis Presley" or "The Beatles", "Frank Sinatra" or "Bing Crosby". He also has no credibility, where is Nana Moskouri? Cliff Richard? , Scorpions? Because of fans like you, this page has been corrupted so badly, this is not a fan page. If you want a Michael Jackson Fan page, you have other means of communication.
This page will be changed or deleted for the simple reason that it is: FALSE! , WRONG! and DOES NOT ENJOY CREDIBILITY! No one believes the statement you just made regarding Jackson about Presley, that's why he has a lot of PROBLEMS! 2800:430:1387:5518:155:4646:A50F:8230 (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IFPI disagrees with you, "At the end of the Century, he (MJ) has sold more records around the world than any SINGLE artist around the world in the history of the media, simply put his influence on entertainment and our entire culture is immeasurable" - World Music Awards (2000) (Sales figures which are supplied directly by the IFPI determine the award winners of each category except for in Spain and Italy which are supplied by separate bodies"). The Beatles were still considered and acknowledged as the best selling musical act of all time during this period.
There was no independent audit conducted on the sales of Elvis or Bing Crosby during their lifetimes, so any figures provided about them is pure fiction. All we know is what Elvis has been certified for. Unlike the Beatles who've been independently investigated by the NewYorker and put at around 500m or Jackson who had his entire life documented by the media and provided sales figures for all of his records for the most part. Never17 (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 July 2024

[edit]

“Change Christina Aguilera’s Germany music certifications to include the recently official update of Say Something single to Platinum in Germany” [1] 47.149.234.160 (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC) 47.149.234.160 (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)ECAnest[reply]

Hi @47.149.234.160:! I already included.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ Never 17 : Why do you delete consensus's set?

[edit]

Why ? 2800:BF0:170:B69:7D59:9F88:FF0F:E407 (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI)

[edit]

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) published a list of the 150 best-selling artists (albums and singles worldwide) in early 2006.

Top ten:

Elvis Presley - 1,485,000,000

The Beatles - 1,350,000,000

Bing Crosby - 900,000,000

Frank Sinatra - 650,000,000

Michael Jackson - 400,000,000

ABBA - 370,000,000

Elton John - 360,000,000

Madonna - 350,000,000

Cliff Richard - 250,000,000

The Rolling Stones - 240,000,000

Singers Male:

Elvis Presley - 1,485,000,000

Bing Crosby - 900,000,000

Frank Sinatra - 650,000,000

Michael Jackson - 400,000,000

Elton John - 250,000,000

Cliff Richard - 250,000,000

For female singers:

Madonna - 389,000,000 (singles+albums+live DVD)

Nana Mouskouri - 250,000,000

Céline Dion - 250,000,000

Mariah Carey - 210,000,000

Cher - 190,000,000

Whitney Houston - 189,000,000

Tina Turner - 180,000,000

As for music groups:

The Beatles - 1,350,000,000

Abba - 370,000,000

The Rolling Stones - 240,000,000

Conclusion: Among male artists, the leader by far is Elvis Presley, with almost 1.5 billion records sold. As for women, Madonna is clearly in the lead, with more than 350 million records sold worldwide. Nana Mouskouri is in second place, with sales mainly in Europe. Zeus Argon (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with this list ,It should be here 2800:BF0:170:B69:29C8:95AA:C267:5996 (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this list. The user Zeus Argon didn't provide a link to a website or a source. Only saying "this list i'm writing here in plain text is from this source" is not proof enough.
And about the user 2800:BF0, if your IP adress keep changing, the mediawiki system can't attribute editions and messages to you. Each IP variation looks like a different user. Or could be really a different user. Who knows. Paladium (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop flooding this talk page, this is not a forum. Never17 (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

REACHING A VALID CONSENSUS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT AND VALIDITY OF THIS BEST SELLING LISTING DIRECTORY:

[edit]

To all Editors and Contributors: I publish this brief with the utmost respect to all, and state without reservation that we need a formal consensus in order to establish this best-selling Wikipedia listing directory as a valid formal point of reference. Presently, as many have attribute, this best-selling listing directory is lacking in fundamental credibility. Case in point: Most of us who have done research in revisiting websites and news organizations have concluded that our best-selling listing directory is not being utilized as a point of reference by any news institution or serious informative periodical. This is more than troubling!! for it unequivocally states the lack of credibility that is presently hampering us all. What can we do to change this? What modifications can we establish to make this Wikipedia listing directory acceptable as comparable to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) best-selling list directory? "The Guinness Book of World Records" utilizes the RIAA as a point of reference in all of its tabulations and computation endeavors. Moreover, the prestigious yearly "World Almanac" which I subscribe to and represents global references in all points of listing directories, uses the RIAA as it's point of reference source for all music data. Even though as I have stated in previous brief's, the RIAA uses a faulty computation methodology that leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to accurate measurements in sales for all present entertainers and legacy artists. And to reiterate, the RIAA, only represents the certified figures in the United States and not the universality (globally) of the claimed or certified sales that we try to ascertain to. Again, this is troubling and most problematic. And yet, regardless of the RIAA methodology, "The World Almanac" does not even consider our best listing directory as a valid point of reference. I know this, for I have been inquisitive about this matter and written extensively to them vociferously defending our cause. This dilemma, and with all respect to my wiki counterparts, states a lot about the credibility factor of this article which is presently nonexistent. More and into another point that needs to be address concurrently regarding this matter and issue, is the fact that some contributors and perhaps editors have engaged in disparaging attacks against one another in refuting or disputing the validity of this Wikipedia best-selling list directory. I am hoping that all this can somehow change, and we can restore civility, decency respect and courtesy toward all opinions regardless as to how contrarian they may be to the factions in dispute. In closing, let us somehow reach a valid formal consensus by engaging in constructive dialogue for the improvements that this best-selling listing directory needs in order to be wielded as a valid point of reference by all reputed respectable arts and media organizations. We need to accomplish endeavoring through modifications and proper adjustments, this essential need if we are ever going to be taken seriously and thus supplant the RIAA as a point of reference and create validity and credibility to "our" Best-selling listing directory. Any response or constructive feedback to this brief is welcomed. Victor0327 (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should never be used as a reference, so it's not at all troubling that this list isn't being utilized as a reference by any news institution or serious informative periodical. --Onorem (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? So, what you are stating is that it shouldn't be taking seriously? neither as a point of reference? So, what's the use in publishing this list? many scholars from the halls of Academia use Wikipedia as a point of reference. In conclusion, many will dispute the validity of your statement. Thank you for your response. Victor0327 (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a fantastic starting point, but the references we use for our articles are what 'scholars from the halls of Academia' should be using as references. I'm not at all saying we shouldn't try to be as accurate as possible, or that no improvements to the methods used to define and source items from this list are possible. But no, Wikipedia itself isn't a reference. --Onorem (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point: I look up information all the time through the annals of Wikipedia, and most of the information to the subjects at hand, in correlation to other points of references, turns out to be factual. But nevertheless, thank you for your input and feedback. Victor0327 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.musikindustrie.de/wie-musik-zur-karriere-werden-kann/markt-bestseller/gold-/platin-und-diamond-auszeichnung/datenbank#topSearch
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists&oldid=1236066852"