Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Rihanna’s sales are inflated (and not only hers)

Chartmasters is a very accurate source that allows to compare physical sales, digital sales and streaming sales, both of singles and albums. Rihanna sold 257 millions digital tracks, which are each worth 0.15 of an equivalent album sales. That makes her indeed the best selling DIGITAL artist of all time, but that’s just one format. Long story short if all formats are correctly weighted, like Chartmasters explained, Rihanna is the 8th best selling female artist of all time, at around 116 millions equivalent album sales. She is far from being the second best selling female artist of all time, as she is behind Madonna, Celine, Taylor, Mariah, Whitney and Barbra and by a slight margin, even Britney. It makes sense because she had only 11 years of intense recording activity (2005-2016). Saying that she sold more than the likes Celine Dion is just false, as Celine sold nearly twice as much (she sold 200 millions equivalent album sales). Even Beyoncé is much lower then 200 million equivalent album sales, she’s roughly at 100 millions. Taylor is at 190 million equivalent album sales and she’s climbing the ladder, due to her incredible body of work and continuous success, focus on her numbers because they are growing day by day. So all in all what I want to say is that many of the numbers of the best selling artists are inflated. Rihanna isn’t the second best selling female artist of all time. Michael and The Beatles’ sales are also inflated, according to chartmasters, which is updated daily and uses the same formula for every artist, they are the top2 best selling artists of all time and they sold 425 millions EAS and 340 millions EAS respectively, no more. Tommyb95 (talk) 11:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

and streaming must be considered as sales because it is the main means of music consumption in the world. Not acknowledging streaming kills the sales of artists like Taylor, Bad Bunny, Drake, who happen to be the best selling artists right now. The industry norm is that a stream is worth 1/1500 of an equivalent album sales. Tommyb95 (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tommyb95: Chartmasters is not a valid source per WP:BADCHARTSAVOID. It falls under WP:SPS. - Ïvana (talk) 12:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s more accurate and transparent than all the numbers in this wikipedia list, Rihanna selling more than Madonna is just laughable and the formats are all mixed and not weighted Tommyb95 (talk) 13:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

plus Chartmasters does say where they draw their data from. There are hundreds of receipts for their sources and they have a tool to keep track of streams everyday. Above all, their cpcs method is actually fair and it allows to make meaningful comparisons across artists from different eras. And they explain all the math behind it.

Seriosly, Rihanna with her 10 years career being in Madonna’s league is just not accurate and it spreads misinformation, belittling the achievements of female artists like Celine, Mariah, Whitney, Barbra, Taylor and ofc Madonna herself 2A0E:425:889B:0:506:8355:4261:F923 (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I quickly checked Rihanna's sales in Chartmasters (link). I don't see a single source backing those claims. They list a bunch of sales and categorize them per country but I cannot double check if those numbers are accurate. So we cannot rely on that. And they use their own method ("Commensurate Sales to Popularity Concept") to determine the final results. It doesn't matter if they explain the math behind that logic; it is not a method that is widely used and we also don't have access to the raw data, or at least they are not linking it so we have to assume that it is correct. All in all, those results are not admisible here per Wikipedia content guidelines. So we stick to certifications. - Ïvana (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

if you subscribe you can have access to the raw data. Besides, for the claimed sales the wikipedia uses news, which are known to exaggerate sales to create hype around artists’… journalists’ articles are the least reliable source if you aim for accuracy… also certifications are clearly wrong, how on Earth can Rihanna have more certified sales than Madonna? Madonna has been around 40 years and has some of the best selling album of all times (Like A Virgin, True Blue), and Rihanna with a career of 11 years (her last album dates to 2006) has more than twice the certified sales of Madonna? they may be certified but it’s clearly not believable. Also there needs to be a way to compare digital sales, physical sales and streaming if you wanna be accurate, and the cpsc method fulfils that requirement. Without a valid method to compare all the formats all rankings are baseless. It may not be well known but at least it’s fair and it makes sense, some of those certifications are obviously not reliable Tommyb95 (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Rihanna's dominance in certifications compared to Madonna can be attributed to the disparity in certification systems between the 20th century and today's global standards. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Tommyb95 @Ïvana, I don't even know why this page was created in the first place, everything in it is false. Saying Rihanna sold more than Taylor Swift how can they justify it, if Taylor topped Global Recording Artist of the Year more than her in the same decade, and was the top artist of the century in Billboard's greatest artist of all time. Rihanna having more certifications than others and Beyoncé selling more than Adele is absurd, when you check best selling artist or album in each country, you won't see Beyoncé so how did she sold 200 million records. Streaming is a part of music that's used by IFPI and other associations, so it does counts. Chartmaster is a good option better than those outlets that are faking stats just to praise an artist. I've never trust this page, and if you really look at it even Billie Eillish has sold 300 million records, the sales should be in units because records means (Album sales + songs sales) and and Eillish has sold more than 200 million songs. Yotrages (talk) 9:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The establishment of the Global Recording Artist of the Year award in 2013. Rihanna has only released one album since then.

Regarding Chartmasters, their methodology, the "Commensurate Sales to Popularity Concept," has raised skepticism. For instance, they claim The Beatles have sold 424.9 million EAS units, derived from various formats such as studio albums (160.6 million), LPs (203.3 million), physical singles (116 million), digital singles (35.2M), and streams (20.8M). However, discrepancies arise when attempting to reconcile these figures, suggesting inconsistencies in their approach. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

you need to apply their formula to reconcile the figures… physical singles and digital singles are not expressed in albums sales, they are worthy 0.3 EAS (equivalent album sales) and 0.15 (equivalent album sales), if you do the math like they explain in their cpsc analysis the results add 37.161.47.255 (talk) 08:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

You are quite illiterate, you are meant to add all of those individual figures to get total record sales Never17 (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

you are meant to add all those figures after all of them have been converted in EAS, in the way that is explained on the site in the definition of the cpsc concept… the digital and physical single sales are not directly expressed in EAS, you have to convert them before you do the math 37.161.53.209 (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I know at their method is stupid, simply adding the figures leads to a far more accurate and reliable result

That said In 1972, The Tampa Tribune reported that Elvis Presley had sold 200 million records worldwide. In 1977, the same year of Presley’s death, the Guardian reported that the singer sold more than 260 million records. In 1997, The Irish Times reported that Elvis Presley sold 100 Million records worldwide in 20 years since his death in 1977, thus bringing his total claimed sales to 360 Million. There's literally no way in hell that Elvis managed to sell another 100 to 150 million records since 1997, at the pace he was selling him.

Michael had 200 million records before Dangerous came out, he had at least 380 million at the time of the World Music Awards when he was given the Artist of the Millennium award and sold another 40 million minimum that decade before his death. In which prompted sales of 100 million since then. He's at 500 million

The Beatles also have not sold 600 million, they are at 550 million or so.

Disregarding Chartmasters, we should still work to using reliable figures. Michael's own records and achievements page cited 500 million, and in 2009 everyone cited 750 million. That figure has dropped but the continued inflated number for the Beatles at 600 million remain Never17 (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Michael Jackson has factually sold over 500 million, The Beatles are at around 550 million tops. There's no evidence to suggest Elvis has sold 500 million, he's at 400 million tops. Never17 (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Tom Jones

Nowhere on this list?????????? 71.82.253.188 (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Dolly Parton

Not a frequent editor in music and especially country, but noticed Dolly Parton is not included.

Would someone please confirm this way of counting is accurate for certified sales: RIAA is 31.55 million, BPI (cannot link directly) is c. 4.5 million. I imagine there are other countries that may be included, though I am not familiar with many foreign databases (or how to search them in a way that meets criteria for inclusion). As for claimed sales, The Washington Post puts it at 100 million and the same goes for Billboard.

I wanted to make sure I run this by editors who are well acquainted with the count system for the rankings. Thanks so much! Ppt91^talk 17:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you please break down the certification figure of RIAA and show how you reached 31.55 million? TheWikiholic (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is Iron Butterfly not on this page?

Apparently Iron Butterfly's 1968 album In-a-gadda-da-vida has sold 30 million copies, according to the best selling artists page. Can anyone verify this info and if so, add the band to this page. Easyrider77 (talk) 01:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Oasis worldwide sales of 75 million

Hi I am sure Oasis has now passed the 75 million records sales worldwide. Can someone please add them to the list of best selling artists of all time please ?. Many Thanks 92.251.180.215 (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Duran Duran

From multiple sources and Wikipedias own Duran Duran page- “ according to Billboard, Duran Duran have sold over 100 million records.” Durandurunner (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Madonna

Madonna has been accredited by the Guiness World records as sales of 400,000,000 units sold. The page needs updating BiebersBoyMendes (talk) 11:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Lady gaga certifications

The Spain certifications are old. t The sources for the new certification she gained in that country are in the talk archive page. Cause I wrotethem weeks ago and nobody addedLilTrilly (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

You can add the data by yourself. The additions may be delayed or no done, because there is no a highly active user like Harout was in the past, and streaming certs are almost updated each week from databases, and for various of the artists in the list. That's a lot of data and is not a thing only with Gaga. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't add cause the page is blocked. I don't have the permissions to mmake edit on the page. LilTrilly (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I have already read the message you added to the Talk page last February. I will check the information thoroughly and if there is anything that needs to be updated (which apparently there is), I will proceed to do so. Salvabl (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much LilTrilly (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 February 2024

This information is outdated needs a update, i'm requesting permission to edit it. Madonna has sold 400 million units and needs to be listed as such instead of 300-350 million She has reportedly sold more than 400 million records — albums, singles and digital — during her 40-year music career. According to the website, the singer has held the record since 2009, with Rihanna, Mariah Carey, Taylor Swift and Beyoncé following right behind., The Beatles are at 500 million and the same citation "Around the time Jackson died, Jackson had sold about four hundred million records, Since Jackson’s death, he’s moved some forty million albums and fifty million song downloads, plus a lot of DVDs and ringtones for a total, more or less, of roughly five hundred and fifteen million sold" stated at the time Jackson died he had sold 400 million, the article was published several years later and states sales over 500 million as of that date, so Michael Jackson should be listed at 500 million rather than 400 million. Madonna's sales need to be changed from 350 million to 400 million. ^.. " Never17 (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done popodameron ⁠talk 23:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The 400M can't be used yet as per guidelines followed in the list. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a issue, Madonna's cites Hollywood Reporter. That's a reliable news source Never17 (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

note for future reference that you generally should avoid completely replacing a comment without at least updating the time and date in the signature (and preferably striking through the old comment). popodameron ⁠talk 01:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

My mistake Never17 (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, the real discussion we should be having is Elvis, 95% of his certified sales come from the US and UK. Since he doesn't sell records anymore and barely sold anything outside those two countries, it's completely unrealistic to suggest he would have anything close to the 500 million that's been claimed for him, he's at 234 million right now. He shouldn't be anywhere close to The Beatles or Jackson who are both neck and neck in certifications at the moment, and sold at least 70 million internationally each.

Madonna is far closer to Elvis in sales than he is to either MJ or Beatles. Never17 (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We have a reliable source claiming that he has 500 million. You can't really change that because you think it's unlikely (without at least finding recent contradictory sources). It is what it is. popodameron ⁠talk 02:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm just venting my frustrations. (Edit: My initial point stands however, i want permission to edit this so Madonna is at 400m & Michael is at 500m. It's long overdue of a update) Never17 (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work!!!!! @PopoDameron, Here's another reliable source that cites 500 million. It's more recent, from Yahoo UK.

The 'Thriller' hitmaker left an indelible mark on music, dance and beyond. The record-breaking star - who sold more than 500 million records worldwide Never17 (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Apoxyomenus, which guidelines are you referring to exactly? I can see some guidelines regarding the certified units column, but cannot see any guidelines regarding the claimed sales column besides Such figures should be supported by highly reliable sources, preferably from news organizations. Per WP:RSP, hollywoodreporter.com should be good, no? popodameron ⁠talk 01:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all: the current guidelines do not preclude the addition of the 400M figure for Madonna. In the past there was a methodology based on fabricated percentages created by a user who decided to leave Wikipedia when that methodology was removed after a vote. That methodology required that a percentage of an artist's claimed sales be supported by certified sales. At first glance, this may be positive, but such percentages were invented, and were lower for older artists, perpetuating a fabricated inaccuracy.

In Jackson's case, the matter is not so complicated because his sales have increased considerably in recent years. If we take into account that there is an agreement to add the claimed sales figure of 600M for Presley when his certified sales reach 260M, the usual 100M difference in Presley's claimed sales over Jackson's implies that it would be plausible to add the claimed sales figure of 500M for Jackson when his certified sales were 260M (and right now they are 285.8M). When there was consensus to add the claimed sales figure of 400M for Jackson it was set as a requirement that his certified sales reach 220M. Since then, his certified sales have increased 65.8M (which is enough to back up a 100M claimed sales figure).

In Madonna's case we are talking about an artist with a huge global reach. The one thing I consider we should take into account about the 400M claimed sales figure is that it was announced by Guinness World Records, who, apart from having no authority to certify worldwide sales, have shown inconsistencies in the data they have provided over the years. We have to take into account that according to Guinness World Records Presley's sales are 1 billion records and Madonna's sales are 400M. That difference of 600M is just nonsense.

But, having said that, we also have to take into account that the 400M figure can also be stated not only by Guinness World Records (Madonna herself stated it before, and maybe some other media.. I ignore it). A month ago I read the 400M claimed sales figure for Madonna stated in The Boston Globe (link here). I consider it a valid reference, and therefore I see no problem with its addition to the list.

Apart from that, I would like to add some additional references to various claimed sales figures (without changing any of the figures), such as a second reference for The Beatles' 500M claimed sales figure. Salvabl (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with your statement, thank you. (Edit: well most of it) Elvis's claim of 600 million seem unreliable, as the The Independent source previously used cited his own Website Elvis.com for that figure, a majority of the news sites at the time claimed Jackson had 750 million but those are also unreliable since it claimed the Beatles and Elvis sold a billion. Which is nonsense. I found 3 different websites citing that the Beatles sold 600 million, they are feasibly the only artists who have sold that much. [User:Never17|Never17]] (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The one thing I consider we should take into account about the 400M claimed sales figure is that it was announced by Guinness World Records shouldn't be a problem because Guinness themselves cite Madonna for that statement: Madonna, 65, said during an interview on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon last year that she had sold over 400 million records. popodameron ⁠talk 05:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We can find the 600M claimed sales figure for Presley in various reliable sources. However, the most plausible is that it is the result of circular reporting, considering that years ago, that figure was added to Presley's article on Wikipedia backing it up with a reference stating that he sold 300M records during his lifetime, along with another reference dated in 2001 stating that he sold 300M from 1977 to 2001. However, there were references dated 4 years earlier (in 1997) that stated that from Presley's death until 1997 the sales were 150M. The higher figure was added, producing a figure of 600M.

However, I consider it appropriate to keep the figure of 500M for Presley, taking into account other figures present for other artists. Additionally, there is an agreement I previously mentioned to add the 600M claimed sales figure for Presley when his certified sales reach 260M. This, apart from the fact that it was the result of consensus, is not inappropriate considering that The Beatles already had the 600M figure included when their certified sales were "only" 260M. We should avoid any kind of bias, whether for Presley, Jackson or any other artist.

That will be a situation in the future (we have to keep in mind that Presley's certified sales are no longer growing fast), and if when that moment comes, The Beatles or Jackson's certified sales are largely superior to Elvis'... then other figures could be added. But right now we are not in that situation.

Regarding Madonna's sales, what I meant is that I find it more convenient to include references that do not make direct mention to Guinness World Records, and I wanted to clarify that the claimed sales figure of 400M for Madonna was not first stated by Guinness (which I think is something positive). On the other hand, a figure stated by a music artist is similar to when a record company states sales figures. There are cases such as the figures claimed by the record companies for The Beatles, Jackson or Presley that were inflated and exaggerated (1 billion records). This does not mean that all figures claimed by record labels or by the artists themselves should always be inflated, but the usual in this List, and according to its guidelines, is to use references such as this one, where the 400M figure is stated for Madonna in The Boston Globe. Salvabl (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi again. With regards Madonna's 400 million and the possibly problem with the Guinness or herself, as far I remember, there exist previous references of reliable sources indicating from 350 million to even 500 million records sold. Seems that she keeps selling, weak compared to the artists of the moment, but keeps selling. So at this point, I see no problem with implementing the upgrade if most users favor it, and therefore, a departure to what was considered de facto guidelines like Harout used to work with (and this apply also to others). I remember a bit the previous threads, and the discomfort with Harout's possible "original research". I think all "methods" carry problems, because of the nature of record sales (sometimes, contaminated with circular reporting, fandoms, inflations by record labels, over-certified/under-certified works and so on), although I remember it wasn't a consensus per se, because the point of views were divided/subdivided; and seeing today's landscape appears that the majority tends to pick up from the highest estimated sales to even update sales without even a reliable source (just the certifications), and appears to be the "popular" answer. It is a waste of real life time be involved in edit wars. In the process, I would add that perhaps a third figure can be implemented, instead of two; Wikipedia's readers will pick up what they wanna pick, the lowest, or the highest, or the middle. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems coherent to me; and it is also true what you said that there were other sources that stated figures higher than 300M for Madonna before Guinness mentioned that figure, so I see no problem with adding that figure of claimed sales, especially considering that we are talking about one of the artists with the largest global reach among all the artists included in this List.

And it is true that no "method" is going to be perfect, since when it concerns claimed worldwide sales it is impossible to achieve accuracy based on numbers, due to the lack of sales data. Apart from that, I think that any de facto departure from the former Harout's methodology is something positive, primarily because it was de jure removed long ago (indeed, there is no longer any written "trace" of the former methodology's guidelines, as all was modified accordingly, such as the Page notice or the talk mbox).

As discussed in the past, it is still pending to add some artists such as Charles Aznavour, as it is not very coherent that R. Kelly and Kenny G are included in the "List of best-selling music artists" while Charles Aznavour is not.

Regarding the inclusion of a third claimed sales figure I find no problem, since there is no restriction on this either now (under the current methodology's guidelines) or in the past (when there were three figures of claimed sales for some music artists/bands). This may be necessary in some cases, but not in all, as sometimes multiple figures of claimed sales are not available, or some of them may be too outdated due to the increase of artists' certified sales.

Before continuing to address other matters that may be relevant to improve the list, such as the inclusion of some artists, I am somewhat busy now updating the certified sales figures of some artists, so if it is possible for you to implement the claimed sales figure, it would be helpful due to my current workload. Right now I am checking Lady Gaga's certified sales in Spain, as requested by @LilTrilly, since they indeed need to be updated, as well as the certified sales of other artists and bands. Salvabl (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel you, no complaints. Never17 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Bing Crosby

The List of best-selling singles has songs by Bing Crosby at 1st and 3rd, with 50 resp. 30 million units sold. Those alone add up to 80 million, yet Cosby is not on this list? The "Career achievements" section in his article gives claims for up to 500 million. 95.223.107.186 (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I just had a look at the archives and saw that this has been discussed many times before. Sorry for not checking beforehand, but it does seem weird when looking at this article and comparing it to List of best-selling singles. 95.223.107.186 (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera

Aguilera's stats seems to need an updating. I can't edit the page, can someone update it? Thanks!

Brazil certifications

Stripped: Gold, 100,000 "Moves Like Jagger": 3x Diamond, 640,000 Total: 740,000 Source: PMB

Spain certifications

Christina Aguilera: Platinum, 100,000 Mi Reflejo: Platinum, 100,000 Stripped: Gold, 75,000 AGUILERA: Gold, 50,000 "Beautiful": Gold, 30,000 "Lady Marmalade": Gold, 30,000 "Feel This Moment": Platinum, 60,000 "Moves Like Jagger": Platinum, 60,000 "Say Something": Platinum, 60,000 Total: 530,000 Sources: PROMUSICAE, PROMUSICAE

United Kingdom certifications

Keeps Gettin' Better: A Decade of Hits: Platinum, 300,000 Bionic: Silver, 60,000 Christina Aguilera, Platinum, 300,000 Stripped: 6x Platinum, 1,800,000 Back to Basics: Platinum, 300,000 Burlesque OST: Gold, 100,000 "Show Me How You Burlesque": Silver, 200,000 "Car Wash": Silver, 200,000 "Hurt": Gold, 400,000 "Moves Like Jagger": 4x Platinum, 2,400,000 "Feel This Moment": Platinum, 600,000 "Lady Marmalade": 2x Platinum, 1,200,000 "Genie in a Bottle": 2x Platinum, 1,200,000 "Come On Over (All I Want Is You): Silver, 200,000 "Ain't No Other Man": Gold, 400,000 "Fighter": Gold, 400,000 "Nobody Wants to Be Lonely": Silver, 200,000 "Say Something": 2x Platinum, 1,200,000 "Can't Hold Us Down": Silver, 200,000 "Beautiful": Platinum, 600,000 "Candyman": Gold, 400,000 "Dirrty": Platinum, 600,000 "Tell Me": Silver, 200,000 "What a Girl Wants": Silver, 200,000 Stripped Live in the U.K. (video album): Platinum, 50,000 Total: 13,710,000 Source: BPI

Germany certifications

Back to Basics: 3x Gold, 300,000 Stripped: Platinum, 300,000 "Say Something": Gold, 150,000 "Hurt": Gold, 150,000 "Genie in a Bottle": Platinum, 500,000 "Dirrty": Gold, 250,000 "Lady Marmalade": Platinum, 500,000 "Moves Like Jagger": 5x Gold, 750,000 "Feel This Moment": Platinum, 300,000 Stripped Live in the U.K. (video album): Gold, 25,000 Total: 3,225,000 Source: BVMI

Canada certifications

Christina Aguilera: 6x Platinum, 600,000 Back to Basics: 3x Platinum, 300,000 Stripped: 4x Platinum, 400,000 Lotus: Gold, 40,000 "Fighter": Platinum, 80,000 "Dirrty": 2x Platinum, 160,000 "Beautiful": 2x Platinum, 160,000 "Genie in a Bottle": Platinum, 80,000 "Moves Like Jagger": Diamond, 800,000 "Ain't No Other Man" (digital download): Platinum, 20,000 "Hurt" (digital download): Gold, 20,000 "Candyman" (digital download): Gold, 20,000 "Say Something" (digital download): 6x Platinum, 480,000 "Feel This Moment" (digital download): 4x Platinum, 320,000 "Ain't No Other Man" (ringtone): Gold, 20,000 Total: 3,500,000 Source: Music Canada

Australia certifications

Christina Aguilera: Platinum, 70,000 Stripped: 4x Platinum, 280,000 Back to Basics: 2x Platinum, 140,000 Keeps Gettin' Better: A Decade of Hits: Platinum, 70,000 Bionic: Gold, 35,000 Burlesque OST: Platinum, 70,000 "Genie in a Bottle": Platinum, 70,000 "What a Girl Wants": Gold, 35,000 "Come On Over (All I Want Is You)": Platinum, 70,000 "Nobody Wants to Be Lonely": Gold, 35,000 "Lady Marmalade": 2x Platinum, 140,000 "Dirrty": Platinum, 70,000 "Beautiful": Platinum, 70,000 "Fighter: Gold, 35,000 "Can't Hold Us Down": Gold, 35,000 "Car Wash": Gold, 35,000 "Tilt Ya Head Back": Platinum, 70,000 "Ain't No Other Man": Gold, 35,000 "Hurt": Gold, 35,000 "Candyman": Platinum, 70,000 "Not Myself Tonight": Gold, 35,000 "Moves Like Jagger": 17x Platinum, 1,190,000 "Feel This Moment": 3x Platinum, 210,000 "Say Something": 4x Platinum, 280,000 My Reflection (video album): Platinum, 15,000 Stripped Live in the U.K. (video album): 3x Platinum, 45,000 Back to Basics: Live and Down Under (video album): 2x Platinum, 30,000 Total: 3,275,000 Source: ARIA

Denmark certifications

Stripped: Platinum, 40,000 Back to Basics: Gold, 30,000 "Beautiful": Gold, 45,000 "Genie in a Bottle": Gold, 45,000 "This Christmas": Gold, 45,000 "Lady Marmalade": Gold, 45,000 "Dirrty": Gold, 4,000 "Ain't No Other Man": Gold, 7,500 "Hurt": Gold, 7,500 "Nobody Wants to Be Lonely": Gold, 4,000 "Moves Like Jagger": 3x Platinum, 270,000 "Feel This Moment": Gold, 45,000 "Say Something": 2x Platinum, 180,000 Total: 768,000 And streaming certifications... but I don't know how it is converted in sales: "Your Body" (streaming): Gold, 900,000 "Moves Like Jagger" (streaming): 2x Platinum, 200,000 "Feel This Moment" (streaming): Platinum, 1,800,000 "Say Something" (streaming): Platinum, 2,600,000 Sources: Hitlisten, IFPI DK

And a source to support her 100 million records sold stats by Nine.com.au. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melketon (talk • contribs) 19:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC) Melketon (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the data. There are many artists and bands that require updates on their certified sales figures. I will soon update Christina Aguilera's certified sales in Spain (which is the market/country whose certifications I am currently updating), but I will check the data you have provided to update everything appropriately. Salvabl (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Elvis is the highest selling solo artist in hx.

https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/music/1742006/Elvis-Presley-Michael-Jackson-Frank-Sinatra 174.168.240.31 (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2024

add a new entry in the 80-99million records group: Kylie Minogue > australia > 1987-present > pop > 80 million > 80 million

Multiple sources support these statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kylie_Minogue_albums_discography#cite_note-1 Iamlongy (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. DrowssapSMM 22:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Taylor swift certifications

Taylor’s Australian certs should be 25.295 million now. They got updated. 3,395,000 albums, 21,840,000 singles, 60,000 videos Ash12345Thomson (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Updated with the following.

11× Platinum – 1989

8× Platinum – Fearless

6× Platinum – Lover

5× Platinum – Red

4× Platinum – reputation

3× Platinum – Speak Now

2× Platinum – Taylor Swift, folklore, Midnights

Platinum – evermore, Fearless (Taylor's Version), Red (Taylor's Version), 1989 (Taylor's Version)

Gold – Speak Now (Taylor's Version), The Taylor Swift Holiday Collection, Speak Now World Tour Live

18× Platinum – Shake It Off

13× Platinum – Blank Space, Love Story

11× Platinum – I Knew You Were Trouble.

9× Platinum – You Belong With Me, We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together

8× Platinum – Bad Blood, Style, Wildest Dreams

7× Platinum – I Don’t Wanna Live Forever (Fifty Shades Darker), Anti-Hero

6× Platinum – Cruel Summer, Look What You Made Me Do, Lover

5× Platinum – …Ready For It?, Delicate, You Need to Calm Down,

4× Platinum – 22, cardigan, ME!

3× Platinum – Mine, Everything Has Changed, Out of the Woods, End Game, Don’t Blame Me, The Man, august, exile, willow, Lavender Haze, Karma,

2× Platinum – Our Song, Today Was a Fairytale, Back to December, Mean, Enchanted, Safe & Sound, Red, Welcome To New York, New Romantics, Getaway Car, Gorgeous, Paper Rings, the 1, champagne problems, Love Story (Taylor's Version), All Too Well (Taylor's Version), Bejeweled, Wildest Dreams (Taylor's Version),

Platinum – Teardrops On My Guitar, Picture to Burn, White Horse, Fifteen, Fearless, Speak Now, The Story of Us, Never Grow Up, Sparks Fly, Better Than Revenge, Both of Us, Begin Again, All Too Well, Highway Don’t Care, All You Had to Do Was Stay, How You Get the Girl, Clean, Wonderland, Call It What You Want, I Did Something Bad, King of My Heart, Dress, I Forgot That You Existed, I Think He Knows, Miss Americana & The Heartbreak Prince, Cornelia Street, The Archer, Death by a Thousand Cuts, London Boy, Afterglow, Only the Young, the last great american dynasty, my tears ricochet, mirrorball, seven, betty, this is me trying, illicit affairs, invisible string, Mr. Perfectly Fine, tolerate it, no body no crime, You Belong With Me (Taylor's Version), I Knew You Were Trouble. (Taylor's Version), We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together (Taylor's Version), Message in a Bottle, Maroon, Snow on the Beach, You’re on Your Own Kid, Midnight Rain, Vigilante ****, Sweet Nothing, Mastermind, Question…?, All the Girls You Loved Before, Is It Over Now?,

Gold – Tim McGraw, Should’ve Said No, Forever & Always, Crazier, Breathe, Dear John, Haunted, Last Kiss, Long Live, Ours, Half of My Heart, Eyes Open, State of Grace, I Wish You Would, This Love, I Know Places, You Are In Love, So It Goes…, Dancing With Our Hands Tied, This is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things, New Year’s Day, Soon You’ll Get Better, False God, It’s Nice to Have a Friend, Daylight, Christmas Tree Farm, mad woman, epiphany, peace, hoax, the lakes, gold rush, ‘tis the damn season, happiness, coney island, dorothea, ivy, cowboy like me, long story short, marjorie, evermore, right where you left me, Fearless (Taylor's Version), The Way I Loved You (Taylor's Version), Red (Taylor's Version), 22 (Taylor's Version), I Bet You Think About Me, Nothing New, Run, The Very First Night, Labyrinth, The Great War, Bigger Than the Whole Sky, Paris, High Infidelity, Would’ve Could’ve Should’ve, Hits Different, Enchanted (Taylor's Version), I Can See You, ‘****!’, This Love (Taylor's Version), Now That We Don’t Talk

Total: 25,295,000 Everm4e (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your work. Taylor Swift's sales in Spain also need a considerable update. I'm working on it. If anyone notices that there is any market/country where Swift's certified sales are considerably outdated (figures more than 1 year outdated), please indicate it. Salvabl (talk) 03:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

> New Brazilian Certs (her first since 2018) can you add

>

> Long Live - 4× Diamond

> Blank Space - 3× Diamond

> WANEGBT - Diamond

> Wildest Dreams - 3×Platinum

> Love Story - 2× Platinum

> willow - 2× Platinum

> August - Platinum

> I Think He knows - Gold

> tolerate it - Gold Ash12345Thomson (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information. I will check the figures of Taylor Swift's certifications in Brazil that have been included so far, and I will update the total figure. Salvabl (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

it got updated again so if you have time also check

SINGLE] Safe & Sound Taylor Swift 2024 - Universal Music Gold

[SINGLE] the 1 Taylor Swift 2024 - Universal Music 1xP

[SINGLE] Bad Blood Taylor Swift 2024 - Universal Music 1xDiamond

[SINGLE] Shake It Off Taylor Swift 2024 - Universal Music 3xDiamond

[SINGLE] You Belong With Me Taylor Swift 2024 - Universal Music 2xP Ash12345Thomson (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion for the editors

I was thinking, for the best selling albums we have a threshold of (Certified sales must be within 30% of claimed sales), i think the threshold should be certifications being within 50% of claimed sales in regards to legacy artists. So for The Beatles their next claimed figure is 800 million, when their certifications reach 400 million they'd be within 50% of that figure which would make them eligible for a update, Michael Jackson would need 370 million certified before he goes up to the widely cited 750 million figure. Whereas Elvis would pass the threshold needed for 600 million when his certifications reach 300 million.

This is just a friendly suggestion to other editors as it's kind of difficult to calculate sales for artists who came up before the streaming age Never17 (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Elvis Presley has sold way over 500 million records. Please correct this Wikipedia entry error.

From 1956 to 1975, independent audited figures from RCA records had been established for Elvis Aaron Presley. More and into the point, RCA records announced by late 1975, and before Elvis Presley's death that he had surpassed the 500 million echelon mark in record sales or combined unit sales. This achievement was marked and tabulated by sales of LP's 8-track tapes, Cassettes, and other formats of music sales. Interestingly, after his death and from August 17, 1977, and toward the latter part of 1979, it is estimated, according to RCA, that Presley sold over 250 million units worldwide. Moreover, by late 1982, RCA records again formally announced that Presley had eclipsed the previous record tabulation in sales, and thus had reached the billion mark in unit sales. Furthermore, they were many press clippings circulating and factually divulging grammatically this Presley record sales milestone. As the years progressed, and with the advent of Compact Discs and other formats of music, Presley sold even more. In 1992, after new independent auditing figures were established for Presley in the United States, The RIAA presented the estate with the largest certification presentation in the history of recorded music. He was presented with 110 RIAA awards. More and into the point and presently, the RIAA has bestowed on his musical legacy the astronomical sum of 299 RIAA certificates in the United States alone; again, more than any other recording act in the history of recorded music. In closing, and without question, Presley is the highest selling artist of all time, notwithstanding the faulty computation methods of the RIAA which does not certify records or units that have not reached the 500,000-threshold mark essentially established by the RIAA to certify sales of singles and albums, which is another issue altogether. Case in point: Presley has over 279 albums that have not been certified. Many of these albums have sold over 300 thousand to 400 thousand units. We are hoping that Wikipedia can correct this obvious unequivocal error. Thank you for giving me an opportunity through this platform to state this grievance. 132.147.42.223 (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Record companies & record labels are not reliable sources as they are notorious for inflating figures to prop up their respective artists. Never17 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Then with all due respect, many people like me are disputing the validity of Wikipedia and it's claimed sales figures for entertainers such as Elvis Presley who have sold so many units. My question then to you is what reliable sources are you the editors of Wikipedia using to calculate record sales computations? If you are not using Record Companies or Labels, who in essence, have factually invoke the sales data; what are you relying on? newspaper editors or writers whose knowledge leaves a lot to be desired? I hope not. Mr. Never 17 what logic reasoning are you using? All in all, the facts of the matter are in the musical pundits who have worked for the record companies, whose judgment you and the Wikipedia editors should abide by. Good day sir. 132.147.42.223 (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Nobody has sold close to a billion, record companies are known to inflate sales figures by claiming their respective artist has sold up to or over 1 billion records. If anything the claimed sales are being generous, as Elvis's certified sales don't suggest anything beyond 500 million at best. Even if we were to simply take the claimed sales by reliable sources at face value, the list right now would look like this.

The band ABBA has gone on to sell over 400 million records worldwide, and once reportedly came only second to Volvo as one of Sweden’s biggest exports - CNBC (2022) (Bloomberg and Forbes also cite 400 million records sold)

Madonna has reportedly sold more than 400 million records — albums, singles and digital — during her 40-year music career - The Hollywood Reporter. (Yahoo also cites 400 million records)

Presley has sold more than 500 million records and holds the distinction for most songs charting on Billboard's Top 40 with 114 hits - Reuters (2022) (Yahoo also cites 500 million records sold)

The Fab Four has sold more than 600 million records, tapes and CDs since they exploded on the scene in the early 1960s - CNN (2009). (Forbes, CBC, IGN also cite 600 million records sold)

During his career, Jackson sold an estimated 750 million records worldwide, released 13 No.1 singles - CNN (2009) (Forbes, CBS, Reuters also cited 750 million records sold) Never17 (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, I ask you what is your source to state your claims? First and foremost, Presley has over 250 albums and countless singles which have not been certified. Moreover, many of these albums and singles a total of 279 in albums (at last count) have sold upwards of 400 thousand units and below the 500 thousand thresholds needed to be certified; and most of these albums and singles have long since been deleted. Furthermore 9 times out of ten, even if you "Google" Presley's record all time sales numbers you will always get the grammatical response of over a billion records sold. Your grammatical rhetoric is factually inconsistent. And I state this with the utmost respect. You are divulging that "nobody has sold close to a billion". Again, what is your source in disputing this validity? Now you are comparing acts like Madonna, Abba and Michael Jackson to the Presley phenomenon in record sales. Most of the music historians and knowledgeable musical pundits will put Presley and perhaps the Beatles as the only acts to have reached this billion-mark milestone. In closing, countless books and periodicals (too much to list them all) will conclude with the fact that Presley is the only recording act to have reached that billion-mark sales plateau. 132.147.42.223 (talk) 01:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

elvis is the highest selling solo artist in hx.

From sony records https://www.sony.com/content/sony/en/en_us/SCA/company-news/press-releases/sony-corporation-of-america/2017/sony-music-and-estate-of-michael-jackson-renew-their-landmark-deal.html32.209.183.254 (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

from a forbes article Elvis Is Back With New Money Maker As U.S. Album Certifications Total 146.5 Million Mark Beech

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markbeech/2018/04/07/elvis-is-back-with-new-money-maker-as-u-s-album-certifications-total-146-5-million/#:~:text=The%20Elvis%20cash%20machine%20is,solo%20artist%20of%20all%20time.14:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)32.209.183.254 (talk) 161.11.160.60 (talk) 14:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Since some time ago, no artist is labeled as "the highest-selling solo artist" (or similar labels) in this article, as it was agreed not to do so given the impossibility of verification of such claim, complying also with WP:BURDEN.

Regarding those two sources, both claim the figure of 1 billion records for Jackson and Presley, respectively. However, that figure disappeared from this list years ago as it was considered excessively inflated. Salvabl (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Wrong

Sony records has stated elvis is the highest selling solo artist in hx 174.168.240.31 (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources that didn't come from his own record company cited that he only sold 260 million in his lifetime, and another 100 million in the 20 years following his death in 1977.

Since 1977, over 200 English-language books about Elvis have been published and 100 million copies of his records sold worldwide - The Irish Times (1997).

Presley - as the subject for his best known two-dimensional pop art. Disposable and untouchable. He leaves behind that image and leaves with it 400 songs and sales of over 260 million records - The Guardian (1977)

At the rate he was selling records (260 million in 23 years) (100 million in 20 years) his sales were gradually declining, at best we can estimate that he would have reached 400 million by 2000 with up to 500 million today assuming he continued to sell another 100 million over the next 20 years. Never17 (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

which surpasses michael jackson. Riaa doesnt even count all of his sales due to there rules. 161.11.160.60 (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

We should not mix two completely different things. RIAA's sales figures are for certified sales, while all those figures you are talking about are claimed sales figures. There are numerous claimed sales figures, some even claiming that Elvis sold 400M records the year after his death. Many of these figures are exaggerations for Presley, Jackson or The Beatles. A good example is the extremely inflated figure of 1 billion records, which is claimed for The Beatles, Jackson and Presley. The most appropriate thing to do is to focus on the amount of certified sales as well as on other parameters such as the possible "lost sales".

Apart from that, regarding the link to the Sony press conference you provided, it does not claim that Elvis is the best-selling solo music artist of all time. In fact, that press conference is about Jackson and not about Presley, nor does it claim that Jackson is the best-selling solo music artist. It is true that there are other press conferences by Sony (like this one) where it is stated that Jackson is the best-selling solo music artist of all time, but this should not be taken into account since no artist (Jackson, Presley...) has been labeled as "the highest-selling solo artist" (or similar labels) in this List for years, as it was agreed not to do so given the impossibility of verification of such claim. Salvabl (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I think a 50% threshold of Certified sales for the claimed sales figure is the best way to go about this. For albums we use certified sales being within 30% of the claimed sales Never17 (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

wrong

gwr declares elvis the highest selling solo artist in hx

sony records as well.

The Elvis cash machine is spinning while his record company, Sony , says that his U.S. album sales alone have now exceeded 146.5 million. That figure is just part of the' more than a billion records sold worldwide, making him the best-selling solo artist of all time.' It seems we are still stuck on Elvis.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/markbeech/2018/04/07/elvis-is-back-with-new-money-maker-as-u-s-album-certifications-total-146-5-million/ 161.11.160.60 (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The Elvis cash machine is spinning while his record company, Sony , says that his U.S. album sales alone have now exceeded 146.5 million. That figure is just part of the' more than a billion records sold worldwide, making him the best-selling solo artist of all time.' It seems we are still stuck on Elvis. 161.11.160.60 (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Beyoncé's Genre Listing

While only a minuscule point, it's only fitting that Beyoncé's genre pool be expanded to reflect the music she has created over the last 27 years. She has chart toppers in R&B, Dancehall, Hip-Hop, Pop, House, Adult Contemporary on the hot 100 and on Billboard specific charts not to mention the Afrobeats, Latin and Reggae songs she has in her arsenal. 190.80.24.46 (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I think that listing only two music genres is insufficient for Beyoncé. However, we have to keep into account that there are many artists in whose articles/biographies their infoboxes include more music genres than those listed in this article.

In Beyoncé's case, the following music genres are listed in her article: R&B, pop, hip hop, afrobeats, house and country.

Taking into account that among her most recognizable songs there are some Hip hop songs such as "7/11", "Diva" or "Partition", I think it is appropriate to add the Hip hop genre to the list.

Regarding the possible addition of a fourth music genre for Beyoncé, I think it is something we can discuss since, as of today, considering the other three Beyoncé's music genres (afrobeats, house and country), only country is included in this List for other artists and bands; and on the other hand, afrobeats and house are not included for any artist. It seems more appropriate to me to add the Afrobeats genre than country for Beyoncé, but I think maybe other users may have different opinions about it. There is also the option of listing only three genres (R&B, pop and hip hop) for Beyoncé, since as I have said.. listing fewer music genres here than in the artists' articles is something usual. Salvabl (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 March 2024

Change Tim McGraw Claimed sales from 80 million to 90 million https://time.com/collection/person-of-the-week-podcast/6330694/tim-mcgraw-interview-person-of-the-week/ Duggiephresh (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Liu1126 (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Rhianna

is the number of sales correct? did she outsell the Beatles? if so, she should be at the top of the page 173.66.146.194 (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree: More misinformation from Wikipedia's list of Best-selling Artist of all time. This is the reason that internet misinformation is so prevalent and cannot be taken seriously. Moreover, Eminen has 336.45 certified units, coupled along the same certified discrepancy levels of Drake who has 528.4 certifications. This is the reason that Presley's claimed sales of 500 million makes this best-selling list a fallacy of immense proportions. Certified levels should not be within any percentage level of claimed sales. Furthermore, the Wikipedia editors should get their factual sources of record sales through and from Record companies and reliable recording labels instead of going by "The Irish Times" citation of 1997, Yahoo, Forbes, CNN, Reuters and countless editorial citations who lacked credibility in their record sales tabulations. This best-selling list is a travesty, and it should be corrected or otherwise eradicated for good measure. It makes no sense. Elvis and the Beatles claimed sales should not be measure through any percentile of certification of sales. I hope this written message is read and the list corrected. The list should read Elvis and the Beatles at over a billion units sold with Michael Jackson at a distant third, with 750 million units sold. All other entertainers should also be properly and correctly tabulated in sales by their respective recording companies and labels. 132.147.42.223 (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Sony along with the RIAA states that Jackson is the best selling artist with over 1 billion sold, a article from Sony actually puts the Beatles at 800 million Never17 (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I would not disagree with Sony's computation. Michael Jackson may be on par with Elvis and The Beatles. Jackson's record sales have been phenomenal. He is perhaps alongside Elvis Presley, one of two of the most successful and greatest entertainers in the history of popular music. 132.147.42.223 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Universal Music Group manages Elvis's catalog and said he only sold 500 million worldwide. The claim for him being the best selling solo artist comes from Guinness World Records, which is not a reliable source as they piggyback from Wikipedia. The RIAA cites Jackson as the biggest selling artist with sales of 1 Billion, whereas Sony uses a figure of 800 million for the Beatles. Elvis (2022) Beatles (2019) Jackson (2015).

We've been over this several times, not just me but other editors. Never17 (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The Guinness Book of World Records predates its existence way before Wikipedia. So, I do not know why anyone would unequivocally and erroneously state that they get their reliable information, including but not limited to, "Record sales" from Wikipedia. Wikipedia was non-existent from the 1950's through the 1990's. The Guinness Book of World records on the other hand, started its annual book circulation in the 1950's. Moreover, in the 1970's the Guinness Book of World Records was singling out Bing Crosby and Elvis Presley as the 2 most successful solo acts, coupled with The Beatles as the most successful Group. At the time, the Guinness Book of Records also got their sales data from reliable sources such as (RCA Presley's recording label) (Decca Crosby's recording label) and (Capitol Records the Beatles recording label). Furthermore, the Guinness Book of World records received their sales data and gold and platinum record certifications from the RIAA. In fact, as recent as 2018, and according to the RIAA, and the (Guinness Book of World records) Elvis Presley has attained the most RIAA certificates in music history. At last count, he has been awarded 299 Gold, Platinum and Multiplatinum singles and albums, more than any other recording act in history. Yes, more than Michael Jackson and the Beatles combined. This makes Presley's 500 million Wikipedia sales claimed ridiculous. Wikipedia and its editors can check this out. However, yes you are correct we've been over this issue several times. Regardless how much irrefutable evidence is out there in correlation to the 1.5 billion records that Presley has sold according to the vast majority of reliable sources, which by the way is all over the internet data, they will always be editors who will dispute the validity of Presley's unit sales audits. To quote Dale Carnegie in his famous book, "How to win friends and influence people" it is human nature to never admit that you are not erroneous in your grammatical argument. Thank you once again for giving me this platform to respond. 132.147.42.223 (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/music/1742006/Elvis-Presley-Michael-Jackson-Frank-Sinatra 161.11.160.60 (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

patently false

sony has stated elvis is the highest selling solo artist in hx.

mj is the biggest selling which means the thriller album sold the most for albums ( not that mj sold the most in total units ) 161.11.160.60 (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Moreover, so do the majority of knowledgeable musical pundits, historians and record company label and executives. Elvis is the greatest selling recording artist of all time. Thank you for your response. 132.147.42.223 (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The 1 billion claimed sales figure exists for The Beatles, Jackson and Presley. Regarding Sony's statements (which you have referred to when talking about Presley), these include several press releases about Jackson and Presley; in this press release Sony labeled Jackson as "the biggest selling solo artist in history". On the other hand, Guinness World Records stated in 2014 (this is the last date of their "certification" about Presley) that Presley is the best-selling solo artist; here you can see that information through the Wayback Machine, where it can be read that Presley's sales were +1 billion and that "The Beatles (UK) were the first act to be credited with sales of 1 billion, and it is believed that Michael Jackson (USA, 1958-2009) has also now reached that mark". Later, in December 2015 the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) stated that Jackson's sales exceeded 1 billion records, labeling him as best-selling music artist of all time.

It is also noteworthy that, in 2006 (when Jackson was alive) Guinness World Records stated that Jackson was the first American music artist to sell more than 100M albums outside the United States. If this were so, then the number of albums sold by Presley (according to Guinness) would be less than 100M (and less than the number of albums sold by Jackson in that moment) outside the United States, which makes it very difficult to believe that his non-albums sales (including downloads) would have been high enough to surpass Jackson and surpass (or just reach) the figure of 1 billion records sold worldwide overall. This would imply that his U.S. "lost sales" would be unreasonably high, considering that the music certification system in the U.S. was established in 1958. Regarding the number of Presley's records whose sales have not reached the minimum threshold required to obtain a certification.. it is true that there are "lost sales" there, but to claim that those albums and singles may have sales of up to 400,000 copies per record is only conjecture. The number of copies could be 400,000 units or it could be 40,000. The lack of numeric data makes it impossible to provide an objective statement. Every music artist has "lost sales", this happens for The Beatles, Jackson, Presley, and any other artist/band on this List, but that is no reason to legitimate such high claimed sales figures (claimed by Guinness World Records (who have no authority when it comes to worldwide total music sales) or the RIAA (who has authority when it comes to U.S. sales, but not worldwide) or Sony...) that are inaccurate, inflated, and that generate a "distance" with respect to other artists and bands that is nonsense. Such claims often label Jackson or Presley as "the highest-selling solo artist" (or something similar), but for years now this List has not included that label for any artist, as its removal was agreed upon in past discussions. Salvabl (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Just piggybacking off of what you said, a article from 1984 stated this when asked upfront. This presumably would mean worldwide sales

Thriller Gains World Record Book - "He has yet to become the biggest selling singer ever, Bing Crosby and Elvis Presley are thought to hold that title with more than 200 million records sold"

This is far lower than what was claimed of him by his record company, but mostly in line with what the Guardian had claimed when Elvis died as they cited a figure of 260 million. Meaning their report was generally correct

Never17 (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Following Elvis Presley's demise in August of 1977, there was more than just a significant surge in the sales of records or what is termed as "lost sales". It is noteworthy and more than just a factual source that millions of fans flocked to the stores in pursuit of Presley records. This resulted in the greatest most dramatic increase in record sales in the history of recorded music. Here are some of the most notable points: August 17th, 1977, many record stores in the Los Angeles area and other city suburbs within the confinements of the United States, reported selling an astronomical amount of Presley records. Some sources from The RCA Music service claimed sales of 20 million records the day after he died. Moreover, worldwide press releases gave estimates of 200 million records sold in the four months after his death. In fact, to keep up with demand for Presley records, RCA was using the pressing plants of other recording labels. Estimates range from 15 million to 20 million units per week per pressing plant. More and into the point, The Indianapolis pressing plant was churning out and sending over 30 to 40 million Presley albums onto the market between August and December of 1977. Also, the Camden New Jersey RCA Pressing plant alone, hit the ballpark figure of 75 million Presley albums sold, again to reiterate, from August to December of 1977 in the United States alone. Now some may state that these were inflated figures or that The Guinness Book of world records has "no authority when it comes to worldwide total music sales or that the RIAA has only authority in the USA which makes you partly right. However, you cannot just obscure the issues by stating without facts that the sales are "inaccurate, inflated and that it generates a "distance" with respect to other artists and bands that is nonsense". It would be nonsensical that someone would divulge this type of erroneous grammatical rhetoric, when in fact there is an overwhelming amount of factual documentation that would state for the record, the numeric data that would provide more than just an objective statement. In essence, it has provided through time, a factual one. Much more and into other points of non-conjecture. It you were to properly compute the in between levels of the RIAA. For example, the threshold levels between 500 thousand and a million that formulate the gold and platinum levels of certification, coupled with the level of platinum with multiplatinum levels of certifications, you will see that Presley has millions of record sales not tabulated and not honestly accorded to his all-time sales figures. Also, the disturbing fact, that Presley, to reiterate, has over 250 albums that have sold countless of millions of copies, yet those sales will never be certified, due to the fact that the requirement of reaching the 500 thousand threshold was not met by RIAA standards, is deeply troubling when you properly tabulate his record sales. You are thus, omitting millions and millions of sales. You can argue that this system applies to all other artists. However, due to the incredible output of Presley's singles and albums in the USA alone, you will have to state if you are an objective Person, that the claimed of 500 million for Presley's record sales by Wikipedia is not just ridiculous but laughable and cannot be taken seriously. In closing, further discussions are needed by the editors of Wikipedia in order to establish a factual and more reliable and trustworthy list of Best-selling artists. I guess I am 132.147.42.223(talk). My real name is Victor Abreu and I reside in the city of Sunny Isles Beach Fl. And again, thank you for giving me the time through this platform to respond. 132.147.42.223 (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Elvis wasn't popular outside the United States, he never toured internationally and at the time he was alive the US accounted for over 70% of record sales, so those claims of "missing sales" elsewhere aren't realistic at all. Furthermore RCA retroactively certified All of his eligible albums in the 90s within the United States, if there were any other albums like they claimed that were eligible for a sales update they would have done so at the time. The only other place his sales could have come from is the UK, which was also certified up to date, in 2010 his certified sales stood at 188 million and have since increased by 46 million with 41 million of that coming from the US / UK.

Since 2009, Michael Jackson's certifications have gone up by 142 million units without a past sales audit or taking into account DVD sales, strictly driven by his sales since his death. Both him and the Beatles are pretty close in record sales with Elvis far behind either of them Never17 (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

First of all, for you to state that Elvis was not popular outside the United States, does not merit a response in kind. He is regarded as the single biggest attraction in the history of popular music. Fans came from all over the world to see him live in concert at the international Hilton in Las Vegas. Moreover, he broke attendance records that still stand today. Second of all, RCA went bankrupt in 1986 and thus none of his record sales could have been certified in the 1990's by RCA. The points notwithstanding have little to no merit. The RIAA was the one who certified some of his sales and they properly concluded that Presley had thus eclipsed the Billion mark in sales. He was posthumously awarded the largest presentation of Gold, Platinum and multiplatinum RIAA awards in history, the sum total of 110 Gold and Platinum and Multiplatinum records in 1992. As of today, as previously mentioned, he stands alone with 299 certificates. Again, more than any other entertainer in history. However, more and into the subject matter, and with all due respect, there is no sense in continuing to dispute this topic. You have an opinion and thus you ought to be respected for it. Good evening, sir. 132.147.42.223 (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Good day to you then, various editors have tried to explain to you why the claims by his estate do not have merit which is why we do not use record companies as they inflate numbers. This is not a Elvis fanpage, this is a unbiased editorial page cited by various media publications.

I'm sorry but those changes will not be made Never17 (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Well first of all, when did I state any claims by the state? claims of sales by the state? again when did I state that? Moreover, the points I have made regarding Wikipedia's s claimed sales by Presley and other entertainers have not been successfully countered with facts or by any cohesive or coherent argument from you, or any other editor or editors. Has there been any serious knowledgeable editors responding respectfully and intellectually to my points or counter arguments or statements? I have yet to receive a sound counter argument to any of the points made on my part. And, most of all my friend, of course this is not an Elvis fan page. Like you stated, this is supposed to be, and unbiased editorial properly cited page, and let me add from reliable sources; so various media publications can get factual and honest information. Sadly, Wikipedia because of its faulty content has become an unreliable source. In closing, with no pun intended, the changes whether you can make them or not have been properly modified on many other countless websites properly discussing the subject matter. Once again, thank you for giving me an opportunity on this platform to have an open and honest debate correcting editorial flaws that need to be corrected. 132.147.42.223 (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

patently false

elvis is known globally. fans from across the world visit graceland.

graceland is the only private residence where a sitting president ( BUSH) entertained a head of state ( JAPANESE HEAD OF STATE)

ELVIS IS INDEED THE HIGHEST SELLING SOLO ARTIST BY MANY SOURCES

MJ IS THE BIGGEST SELLING WHICH MEANS THRILLER SOLD THE MOST COMPARED TO OTHER ALBUMS

MJ IS FAR BEHIND ELVIS IN THE UNITES STATES AND DOESNT EVEN HAVE THE NUMBER ONE ALBUM IN THE USA 161.11.160.60 (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Since you have separated your message into different statements, I will try to respond by dividing the information accordingly.

No one has said that Presley is not known globally; however it is a fact that he is a more US-focused artist than others. This can be noted by simply checking the ratio of Presley's U.S. sales to his sales in other countries/markets of the world.

We can also take a look at the percentage of U.S. box office generated by the biopic Elvis with respect to the total worldwide box office. In this case it was 52,3%, while the documentary film about Michael Jackson, This Is It, generated a U.S. box office of 26.9%, while its international box office was 73.1%.

Regarding your second statement. with all due respect, I'm fine with us providing information beyond music sales figures, but I think that the Bush and Japanese PM visit is not relevant to this discussion. It's like if someone says that Jackson was invited to the White House by two presidents (Reagan and Bush) while Presley was only invited by one (Nixon). That has no relevance in this case.

Regarding the "highest-selling solo artist" claim, there are many sources claiming that for Presley (numerous news sources, as well as the Guinness World Records), just as there are for Jackson (numerous news sources, as well as the RIAA). But those claims are not relevant for this article, since for years no artist (Jackson, Presley or any other) is labeled as "the highest-selling solo artist" (or similar labels) in this article, as it was agreed not to do so given the impossibility of verification of such claim, complying also with WP:BURDEN.

And regarding your last statement, it should be noted that this List does not apply only to the United States, but to the whole world. Therefore, the fact that Jackson's Thriller album is not the best-selling album in the U.S. does not mean that it is not the best-selling album of all time worldwide. In Jackson's case, we can find five of his studio albums on the List of best-selling albums, while if we take a look at Presley's discography (at his studio albums, not compilations or EPs) there are several albums that have not even obtained U.S. certifications to this date, such as Good Times, Promised Land, Today or Raised on Rock. Salvabl (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Now can you or any other editor or editors reply or give a thorough rebuttal to my statements? or at least counter some of my points? I guess I am 132.147.42.223(talk). Thank you so much ahead of time.  132.147.42.223 (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If not, there is no need to respond. Case in point: we have gone through many issues that need to be addressed without resolving or seeking agreement pertaining to any claimed sales figures. The editors and I are intertwined with too many different areas of disagreement and using too many different sources in order to keep disputing the validity of any text reliable or not. In closing, once again, Thank you so much for your time and courtesy. 132.147.42.223 (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

wrong

you are using one metric to define elvis global popularity

people from around the world flew into vegas to see elvis perform. Fans globally visit graceland every year.

elvis did meet more than one president fyi. when elvis died carter gave an offical presidential proclamation about elvis. Obama never did for mj.

no article, sony or riaa has ever stated mj is the highest selling solo artist like they do for elvis. mj has stated to be the biggest selling mean when you compare his top album ,it oulsold all other albums. mj never has the highest total in sales.

elvis has the highest christmas album of all time fyi.

I TRUST numerous articles, sony and the GWR which all state elvis is the highest selling solo artist than a wiki editor .

this is from the elvis wiki page

It is estimated that more than one billion Elvis Presley records have been sold worldwide <https://www.graceland.com/achievements>, Guinness World Records recognizes him as the best-selling solo artist in the world. 161.11.160.60 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

My friend (the Elvis fan) let me ask you this; when you "GOOGLE" the words pertaining to the question, "How many records has Elvis Presley sold? The question always comes back with the same response; over a Billion records sold; more than any other act in the history of music. Moreover, from "Yahoo" to "Bing" and countless other websites they are all indicative of the same response; "Over a billion records sold". It has been accepted by the vast majority of respectable news agencies and reliable Global periodicals. Wikipedia has been established as not being a reliable source. In closing, what are you disputing? there is no sense in disputing this same validity. Have a great day!! 132.147.42.223 (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

its clear the wiki editors have clear bias. they cant refute your factual points

this was from the elvis wiki page and it was just deleted.

it is estimated that more than one billion Elvis Presley records have been sold worldwide <https://www.graceland.com/achievements>, Guinness World Records recognizes him as the best-selling solo artist in the world.

https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/music/1742006/Elvis-Presley-Michael-Jackson-Frank-Sinatra 174.168.240.31 (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Moreover, so does the majority of knowledgeable musical pundits and popular musical historians. In all fairness, Wikipedia editors are good decent individuals whose knowledge is limited by circumstances. Most of them are young, and are virtually unaware, of the stature in record sales of the older entertainers such as Bing Crosby, who reputedly may have sold over 300 million records according to his record company (Decca) or Sinatra who also sold hundreds of millions before the RIAA was established on March 14, 1958. Regardless, getting back to Presley you are correct, He is the best-selling artist of all time. Thank you for your response. 132.147.42.223 (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I found media outlet claimed sales for various artists that did not come from the record companies. It's the most reliable that i've found

The Beatles - 200 Million sold from 1960-1978 [1] / 250 Million sold by 1980 [2]

Elvis Presley - 260 Million sold from 1954-1977 [3]

So around the same time before the start of the 80s after 20 years, the Beatles and Elvis sold roughly the same amount of records (250-260 million)

For Michael Jackson we have no information related to any of his releases before 1979

Michael Jackson - 110 Million albums sold during the 80s [4] / 200 Million records sold by 1993 [5]

When taking all of this into account, it's highly plausible that Jackson has already outsold the Beatles given the rate he was selling them when he was alive and his high number of foreign market sales (he has over 100 million certified outside the US).

I think it would be fair to make him number one on the list if we reach a point where his certifications are significantly higher than the Beatles. Never17 (talk) 23:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess I can start with the question, where are these media outlets getting their independent audited sales figures from? If not from the record companies or labels, where are they getting their sales figures from? And with all due respect, where is the sales reliability coming from? Let us start with Presley; You are quoting the 200 to 260 million records sold from one of many articles and countless archives written by Martin Walker of the Guardian whom to reiterate, wrote the article the day after Elvis Presley died (August 17, 1977). Interestingly, I have numerous other articles with claimed sales of 500 million for Presley before he died, written by other authors representing different respective media outlets. Moreover, the same argument can be made for the Beatles. John Lennon was shot and killed by David Mark Chapman on December 8, 1980. The day after his assassination, numerous writers from different media outlets claimed all types of different sales computation numbers for the Beatles. In fact, countless magazines are cited by numerous media outlets from the 1970's such as "Cashbox" and "Crawdaddy" which were relying on the Guinness Book of World Records as a reliable source. In earnest, by 1985 using computation sales figures from EMI, the Beatles were allotted the claim of over a billion records sold. This same claim was used by respectable media outlets and the Guinness Book of World Records. Furthermore, the same was grammatically stated for Presley going back to 1982. More and into another point, these two acts and their respective sales were never certified for there was no global certification agency that could certify their sales at the time they were making music. We cannot state the same for Michael Jackson. We know how many units Jackson has sold. We cannot in all honesty state the same for Presley or the Beatles. Of course, Jackson will have more certifications than Presley or the Beatles. Jackson came along when audited measures of his record sales were accurately documented. However, does that mean that he has sold more units than Elvis and The Beatles? many music historians, pundits and reliable sources much too numerous to state; do not believe that Michael Jackson has outsold Elvis or the Beatles. However, you have an opinion and like I have stated previously, you ought to be respected for it. However, as a Wikipedia Editor, you must have better sources than media outlets whose claimed sales for various artist leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to factuality and trustworthiness. Don't you think? 132.147.42.223 (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Record companies are not reliable sources, we've repeatedly told you this and explained why the sources used by them are inflated. Furthermore Jackson was the first artist like the other editor said with certified sales of 100 Million records outside the United States, this is proven to be true as even today the Beatles only stand at 77 million outside the US, whereas Elvis sells nothing internationally. So it's simply not realistic, and since audits can't be done beyond a 3 year period in most cases despite the fact they are largely up to date in physical record sales, it's unlikely they would ever see a jump big enough to catch him Never17 (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

You still have not answered any of my points or counterpoints. You seem to state the same grammatical rhetoric; that "Record companies are not reliable sources". Again, I ask the same question that you "the editor" for obvious reasons, have not been able to answer. What reliable sources are you using? are media outlets reliable sources? and how can you state that Elvis sells nothing internationally. Really? let me give you an example; The albums "If I can Dream" and "The Wonder of you" hit number one in the United Kingdom as recent as 2015 and 2016. How about "A little less Conversation" a single which hit number 1 in 17 countries? Is that not internationally? Moreover, you are using periodicals written by writers who amateurishly don't seem to have a clue on what sources they are using for record sales figures. Again, since you seem to obscure the issues with a blatant lack of knowledge; Michael Jackson came along when global agencies were able to certify his record sales. Elvis and The Beatles did not have these agencies to certify their sales back then. Does that mean they never sold records internationally in astronomical numbers? You are giving this reader and untold others the reason that Wikipedia's best-selling list of artists cannot become a reliable and trustworthy source. We the readers will start informing other websites about the deficient intellectual nature of this Best-selling List category". I am hoping that through time you can make improvements as a "Wikipedia editor". Any thoughts on that? 132.147.42.223 (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why you dismiss journalists as "amateurish" for reporting sales figures... what makes you think they somehow have special access to sales figures from around the world? The fact is that they simply report what the record label tells them, which I agree makes them no more reliable than the record label itself. However, I agree with Never17 that record company figures are not reliable – not only do they have a long history of lying about their artists' sales, they also aren't reporting shop sales but factory shipments, which are two very different things.

In short, there are no accurate sales figures for most artists, for the simple reason that not a single country in the world accurately tracked sales figures before the 1990s – the USA was the first to do so when Nielsen SoundScan took over the compilation of the Billboard charts in 1991, the UK followed in 1994, and most other major markets by the end of the 1990s. Any sales figures reported before this date are estimates, nothing more. Therefore, we will never be able to accurately determine worldwide sales figures for most artists, so personally I think it's a waste of time arguing about them. The best Wikipedia can do is report claimed sales figures from sources other than the record companies, and nothing more. Richard3120 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree, i was just thinking the most reasonable thing is to established a threshold for what certified sales have to hit before their claimed sales figure gets added, and use this method to determine the order of the page. Never17 (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The Beatles currently are at #1 with 600 million, they'd only need to be certified up to 300 million to get within 50% of that so it's close enough for editors to use their discretion and put them at 600 million. Based on how we organize the best selling album page, the same methods would apply to Jackson who's next claimed sales figure is 750 million, and Elvis who would next go up to 600 million. Never17 (talk) 23:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

So, in essence, and with all due respect you are agreeing with me. Moreover, the point I am making is a very a simple one. If you are not going by the tabulations of the record companies who have all the independent data and sales figures; why would you go by a journalist whose knowledge leaves a lot to be desired when in your statement "makes them no more reliable than the record company itself? isn't that amateurish and irresponsible? Yes, you can agree with Never17, however your point becomes moot, for there is no consensus in reaching accurate sales figures. Furthermore, where do these journalists obtain their sales figures? isn't it from the record labels themselves? It is the equivalent of getting your political news from Left Wing anchors such as Jake Tapper or Anderson Cooper of CNN or the rightwing anchors, be it Sean Hannity or Brett Baier from Fox News. Which cable news are you going to believe? This is the reason we are so polarized as a country. If you are a journalist or a Wikipedia editor, you must have facts, data and journalistic integrity in all your endeavors, anything less would be dishonest and without merit. Don't you agree? 132.147.42.223 (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

This last brief was respectfully directed at Richard3120. 132.147.42.223 (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as you are being very immature and lashing out at the editors despite repeated topics made about the same thing. I think this discussion should be closed, we made it clear this is not a forum. Never17 (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I am not lashing out at anyone. Nor have I ever been immature. I have disagreed with you, but I have done so respectfully and with merit. You on the other hand, have not been able to refute or respond to any of my arguments that have been intertwined with facts, but you have also disagreed with me respectfully. Moreover, just because I have successfully disputed the validity of all your statements thus correcting you with facts does not mean that you have to take this discussion so personal. In closing, you as an editor must rely on facts and not conjecture. Hopefully this can be a learning process for any editor or reader. 132.147.42.223 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@132.147.42.223: this is why I don't really want to get too involved here, because the reality is that we will never be able to satisfy everyone... we could put 1 billion for Elvis as you suggest, and someone else will come along and say "how can you believe that figure, we shouldn't be using the figures provided by parties with a vested interest, how can Wikipedia be publishing such nonsense" and another round of arguing starts. It's a war that Wikipedia can never win. Richard3120 (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

In essence, I agree with you, my friend. It's a topic that too many factions and good people will never be able to agree upon. Thank you for your response. 132.147.42.223 (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion of the rankings is to be had for another time when there's significant movement in the certifications of the top 3. Right now effectively The Beatles are on top, MJ is very close and then there's Elvis a ways behind Never17 (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

As stated, we can always agree to disagree with decency and respect...... 132.147.42.223 (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, and as I said, I don't feel a reported figure in a reliable and respected newspaper is necessarily accurate either, because it will simply be a record label-supplied figure, so we are back to square one regarding independently-verified figures. The Presley estate can claim a figure of one billion, but even if this was properly and independently audited (and who by, and where can we see their independent statement about it?), there is no way they are talking about sales... did they really go back and investigate every record outlet and tally every sale during the 1960s in the Philippines, Zimbabwe and Ecuador? Of course not – what they are talking about are shipments, not sales. And as we have already noted, these are not the same thing... sales are likely to be substantially less. People will always want to know "who/what is the best-selling ..." but sadly before the internet era, that definitive, 100% accurate information never existed, and will never exist, so there will always be arguments about it. Richard3120 (talk) 16:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I could not have agreed with you more. This is the reason the subject matter will always be quite controversial. In closing, there is no sense in disputing it. Once again, thank you for your response. 132.147.42.223 (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Your argument has forced my phone into displaying it as a column of text one character wide.

Nobody cares, apart from nerds and record sellers, so please stop your inane squabble.

Or edit the article providing suitable citations etc, as per wikipedia guidelines.92.28.22.15 (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess I will respond to your ire. I do not believe that this was an inane squabble but a constructive discourse. Moreover, topics such as the one that we engaged in, amplifies the intellectual acumen and expands knowledgeable horizons into a subject matter that perhaps "nerds" like me are interested in. I do apologize for your phone malfunctioning into disarray. However, many individuals from different ethnic origins enjoy this type of pop culture discourse. "Check out Wikipedia Talk in Spanish". You will see people disputing different points of view about the same subject and thus trying to find common ground in their verbal engagements. I find topics like these extraordinary. Why? because every topic deals with the fundamental law of learning. People who enjoy debating topics of enlightened wisdom and knowledge such as "did Lincoln owned slaves" or "what did the nature of "Watergate accomplish?" also enjoy disputing, debating and enhancing mind stimulation through constructive discourses about the subject at hand, pertaining to the questions of "who sold more records, The Beatles, Elvis or Jackson". Like the great Athenian leader Pericles once said "We Athenians do not call a man who takes no part in debates or public discourses quiet or unambitious; We call such a man useless... In short, I received beneficial and knowledgeable responses from a Wikipedia Editor named Richard 3120 and his knowledge on the subject matter proved to be an invaluable insight into the many questions I had on the matter. In closing, that made it all worthwhile. Once again, I do apologize for making you uncomfortable for this discourse. I am hoping you will understand. Thank you for your time. 132.147.42.223 (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Dionne Warwick

Dionne Warwick has sold over 100 million records in her career. Just wondering if anyone was interested in adding her to this page. I'm not very active anymore. Thanks -Teammm ^talk? 04:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Eminem

this article as written has Eminem selling more records in the USA than anyone else. Ever. More than Michael, more than Elvis, more than the Beatles. I suspect three are plenty more errors. Xraygun (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not an error – those are the total certified sales worldwide (not just in the USA). The switch from physical records to streaming has made it far easier to gain certifications than for artists from the pre-digital era. If you think Eminem's figures are not believable, you should take a look at Drake's certified sales further down the page... Richard3120 (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

BTS have sold over 100 million units

The Korean band BTS have sold well over 100 millions units and are currently the 41st highest selling musical act ever, but they're not even included in this article.

https://chartmasters.org/best-selling-artists-of-all-time/ Snidoodle (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Chartmasters is not considered a reliable source. Richard3120 (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Madonna

Hi All: I am a bit confused about the claimed RIAA Sales for Madonna and what they are saying. The article cites a 86.5 number but the numbers from the organization are only at 65 million. The attached list also leaves out Garth Brooks, which according to their count is in the top grouping even without international numbers. DesertVulture (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Total certified units (from available markets) and Claimed sales

Hello, I want to help with this topic, have references from reputable media on music business and have reliable statistics on the lists that we can trust.

• What is the criteria for sorting sales lists by claimed sales instead of certified units?

Certified units come from reputable companies that can ensure that those units were sold according to their control methods.

• Do we have a list of specific websites and media that we accept as reputable media about total artist sales?

If we have that list, why we are not adhering to that websites and are using any website as a reference?

Another questions is: Why we have outdated references to websites in the lists?
Are we allowed to delete outdated references from the page as part of editing the article?

Examples of outdated references we should prune:

• Beyoncé Claimed sales 160 million [141] "How Beyonce conquered sportswear". Irish Independent. August 15, 2016.
• Taylor Swift Claimed sales 170 million [134] "5 most popular Instagram accounts". The New Zealand Herald. September 25, 2015.

The references quoted are a decade old and pertain to media unrelated to music. Moreover, these artists have achieved significant album sales in the years spanning from the article's publication to the present year. Paladium (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The only official source we've had was the IFPI list from 2006, which is nearly 20 years old

>2006 - Eurovision - Best selling artists (IFPI list)

The Beatles - 400 Million

Michael Jackson - 350 Million

Elvis Presley - 300 Million

Madonna - 250 Million

[Edit]

However this was a long time ago, and is no longer accurate. The only other thing resembling a source is Chartmasters but it's wholly unreliable.

Generally media outlets will report sales given by the record companies or piggyback off of what's listed here in Wikipedia.

Occasionally publications will provide their own figures, but again those are just estimates from a single editor. We don't know who the best selling artists are, the only thing we know for certain is that Madonna is the 4th best selling artist, and Jackson, Elvis and the Beatles sold 500 million

(Never17 (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Elvis is widely acclaimed as the best selling solo artist in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley#CITEREFReuters2022 161.11.160.60 (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2024

Add Oasis to the list. Oasis sold about 75 million units and should be included in the list. Victor1713 (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Here you go

https://www.nme.com/news/music/noel-gallagher-says-no-point-in-oasis-reforming-as-band-sells-as-many-records-now-than-when-together-3330764

"To date, the band Oasis have sold more than 70 million albums worldwide"

https://variety.com/2015/film/global/oasis-music-documentary-attracts-buyers-1201644452/

"70 Million albums / records sold worldwide"

These would qualify as reliable sources, so Victor was right they should be added Never17 (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

What sources do you need ?. What figure do you have for Oasis worldwide sales ?. Kind Regards 92.251.152.248 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Madonna has sold more than 400 million records, according to the Guinness

https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2023/10/madonna-cements-status-as-biggest-selling-female-recording-artist-of-all-time-760147

In this article, Guinness reports that Madonna stated having sold more than 400 million records worldwide, so she should be in fourth place in the list.

More sources:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/madonna-certified-biggest-selling-female-224520929.html

https://www.straitstimes.com/life/entertainment/madonna-is-still-the-biggest-selling-female-recording-artiste-of-all-time

https://www.gulftoday.ae/culture/2023/10/29/queen-of-pop-madonna-becomes-highest-selling-female-recording-artiste-of-all-time FranciscoGuerra (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

For Madonna we can just swap out the claimed sales of 250 million, move the 300 million down and then replace the 250 million with 400 million.

So her page would look like - Madonna (Claimed Sales: 400 Million / 300 Million) Never17 (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

We should establish a threshold for claimed sales

To avoid any controversy regarding claimed sales, we should determine a minimum threshold for what certified sales need to be in relative to claimed sales. Originally in 2009, the threshold was "Certified sales must be within 15% of claimed sales". That's too low however, if we set a benchmark of around 50%, then whenever a certain act is certified close to half of the highest claimed figure for them, editors would add that and swap out the lowest claimed figure.

This is currently being used for the albums page, and editors will freely make adjustments to albums whenever they meet the required number of certifications. That would work very well here, and could be noted at the top of the page.

Never17 (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Our whole discussion has been deleted for some reason my friend, perhaps by mistake on my part or not. I have no idea. However, I do share your sentiments in making this Wikipedia's best-selling list a truthful and factual one. It was quite delightful in having a fruitful discussion with you on this matter. Victor0327 (talk) 03:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I was unhappy with my comments so i deleted it. If we establish a benchmark of "claimed sales must be within 49-50% of certified sales" then it would make it far more easier for editors to monitor the page.

For example

800 million claimed - Certified sales of at least 395 million

750 Million claimed - Certified sales of at least 350 million

600 million claimed - Certified sales of at least 295 million

500 million claimed - Certified sales of at least 245 million

400 million claimed - Certified sales of at least 200 million

Something like this, would be far more manageable and keeps this page unbiased.

The Beatles are basically at 295 million which is roughly 49% of 600 million, it's close enough that they'd be eligible for what's been claimed. We can apply this same logic to any past musical act like MJ who has claims of 750 million or Elvis who has claims of 600 million, Madonna for example who has 400 million claimed. When their certified sales reach this then they'd be upped to that figure.

Since Thriller is at 100 million with 50 million certified, it's also reasonable that one of the three artists could be placed at 1 billion claimed sales if they were to reach 500 million certified.

Never17 (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. We can work on this. We can make Wikipedia's best-selling a truthful benchmark for all other websites. Victor0327 (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, it's very much appreciated :) Never17 (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You are very welcome my friend. Victor0327 (talk) 04:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

numerous articles and sony records have CLAIMED elvis

is the highest selling solo artist

sold over a billion records

A quick google search can verify this and see that the Riaa greatly discounts elvis sales due to there rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Presley#CITEREFReuters2022 161.11.160.60 (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Guys, attempts to establish a threshold for certified sales is exactly what got this page into trouble with admins in the first place – it's original research and should not be attempted. The last discussion about possibly inflated sales for the Beatles and Elvis Presley (Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 44#Beatles's 600m (inflated)) resulted in concerns about arbitrary thresholds being used – see Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 45#Fundamental Article Issues and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1107#Constant disruptions by User:TheWikiholic, User:TruthGuardians and User:Salvabl at the Talk:List of best-selling music artists. The result of that was that a consensus was established as to what should be presented on this page – see Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 46#RfC on listing method of best-selling music artists. As a result, you should NOT be making any changes to this consensus, and you will have to set up another RfC if you want to change anything. Richard3120 (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

So what is the current methology being used? C was

"All artists included on this list, which have begun charting on official albums or singles charts have their available claimed figures supported by at least 30 percent in certified units"

That's basically what i described, are we using this right now? Or is it something different now? Never17 (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure where you are reading that... option C of the RfC, which was the option that was accepted as consensus, was "both the number of claimed sales and certified sales (without the requirement for inclusion based on figures being supported by a percentage of certified units used)". Which sounds like the complete opposite. Richard3120 (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, your right that is what people decided. So updating sales basically comes down to a editors discretion then? Never17 (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I read it as "include both the claimed sales from reliable sources, and the certified sales", and editors should not decide on whether claimed sales are believable or not, but should simply report them without comment. Richard3120 (talk) 04:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

It's all so confusing honestly. Never17 (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Richard3120 on this:

"include both the claimed sales from reliable sources, and the certified sales", and editors should not decide on whether claimed sales are believable or not, but should simply report them without comment.

We could update the page and check the references and provide updated references. The outdated references i pointed (beyonce and Taylor Swift) on a previous comment that was deleted, are still outdated (10 years ago) and still on the page.

The datablocks class="wikitable plainrowheaders sortable" are structured in "claimed sales" blocks, so "250 million or more records" means "some third party journalists on other web estimated this artist sold at least 250 millions units" and that's true too for artists who have that amount of albums certified (not only estimated) so is just a matter of updating the references and find a reputable reference where we can prove that artist sold that much albums. But some of these artists with less estimated than already certified are still on the previous block because the "claimes sales" estimation is not updated. So I believe this list can be updated with third party information without requiring original research.

Paladium (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with Mr. Richards 3120 and Paladium. I have communicated this concern with many of my friends who are avid music lovers and music historians. They have previously divulged concerns about the establishment of a threshold for certified sales especially when it comes to legacy artists from the 20th century. Some of these acts are notable for their claimed sales, such Elvis Presley, The Beatles and even older acts such as Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby. Crosby for one is not even on Wikipedia's Best-selling list. Musical scholars from the halls of academia regard Crosby as one of the greatest recording acts of all time. In fact, as you are all aware, his single White Christmas is perhaps the best-selling single of all time. Yet Crosby has very little if any certified sales. This is the reason that the claimed sales from reliable sources is so very relevant. Regardless, I think Wikipedia's list of best-selling artists is making the correct adjustments in the factuality and authenticity in updating the references through reputable documentation. Victor0327 (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

A consensus was already made among Editors in the past regarding Bing Crosby and they decided that his sales were unreliable. Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 12#Bing Crosby, regarding Elvis Presley and the Beatles their claimed sales had also been questioned numerous times over the years by editors. However due to the fact The Beatles certified sales were at least 50 million above Elvis who had been claimed to sell 500 million, a decision was made to keep them where they were. Never17 (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh well, in response to the consensus, it is problematic. Even the Wikipedia biography on Bing Crosby would contradict the unreliability of his record sales. He is regarded as one of the best-selling artists of all time. Moreover, and as previously stated he has the best-selling single in the history of recorded music. Furthermore, I among many readers would be concern about this consensus deciding that Crosby's sales would be unreliable. As far as Elvis and the Beatles, I among many, also believe that thresholds should be better established. Let's us hope that they can make better adjustments. 69.84.118.28 (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

This was me I forgot to log in. I guess Iam 69.84.118.28. sorry for the mishap. Victor0327 (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you BTW, i'm just saying Never17 (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I personally think this page is far more reliable than Chartmasters, which some people like to cite. I genuinely distrust them Never17 (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Chartmasters has already been rejected by consensus as an unreliable source on Wikipedia – we have no idea who the person is who is posting his data, where he gets his numbers from, or what his methodology is – see WP:BADCHARTSAVOID. If you see any articles citing Chartmasters data, that source should be removed. Richard3120 (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with both of you wholeheartedly. I do not believe in Chart masters either. I also do not believe in the RIAA best-selling list. This is due to the fact that they use a faulty computation system that deducts millions of unit sales from entertainers such as Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley. Moreover, I believe, and I have done research on this matter and issue. Michael Jackson has sold more than the 89 million albums than the RIAA erroneously states. Case in point; The Beatles and Garth Brooks have all their albums certified. Whereas Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley have an untold number of albums and singles that have not been certified. I have an incredible amount of Michael Jackson records from the "Motown" record label when Berry Gordy was at the helm that have not been certified by the RIAA. There are also over 300 Presley albums that have not met the RIAA criteria to be certified. And many of those albums sold perhaps 200 to 300 thousand copies. More and into the point, the in between levels of Gold to Platinum and Platinum to Multiplatinum levels omits millions of sales in singles and albums from Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley. Furthermore, Presley and Jackson have an incredible number of singles and albums that have not reached the 500 thousand gold certification echelon needed to be tabulated in sales. This is very disturbing because it questions the legitimacy and factuality of the RIAA all-time best-selling list for all artists. Yet they are individuals who will look point blank at this list and will erroneously believe it. This is why it is of utmost importance that Wikipedia's best-selling list does not follow the lack of credibility list that the RIAA chartmasters has fallaciously implemented. Victor0327 (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

(Typo) RIAA and chartmasters has fallaciously implemented. Victor0327 (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree, our job shouldn't be debating who sold the most but rather a fair way to update the sales of respective artists Never17 (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. The Wikipedia best-selling list should be an unbiased, objective and truthful directory based on factuality authenticity and honesty. We are all hopeful that the proper adjustments and modifications should make this list the envy of all other websites, including but not limited to, the RIAA faulty computation listing of best-selling entertainers. Victor0327 (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Seeing that several days have passed since the last comment, I think this issue is already settled. What conclusions are there from this conversation? What actions are we going to take to improve the Wikipedia page?

Paladium (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Now that my friend is the question, what will we do? Never17 (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The ideas from both of you gentlemen have been exemplary. The ways to proceed about the subject at hand makes the issue already in the words of "Paladium" a settled one. Moreover, the cohesiveness and coherency from both of you gentlemen in establishing factual guidelines deserves a response from the editors of this page. What actions are they going to take to systematically improve this Wikipedia page? What feedback have they absorbed and are willing to give a response to from the constructive points made by the very respectable contributors such as Never17, Richards3120, and of course, as previously mentioned Paladium? I think this has been a constructive and very valuable grammatical conversation and a response is meritoriously deserving from the respectable editors of this very readable and enjoyable Wikipedia page. I think the Wikipedia readers and their contributors deserve a response from the editors concerning this matter. Any thoughts on a response? Victor0327 (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You all have made a great analysis of how the List could be improved. It's great to see that there is a will and an effort to improve the quality of this article. Just to add something more to what you have already talked about, I think we should consider the inclusion of some non-Western artists such as Alla Pugacheva or Wei Wei, as well as artists like Charles Aznavour or Roberto Carlos. I think it would be an important previous step before implementing other significant changes to the List, as it is something that will certainly make the List more accurate. It is something long overdue, which was addressed in previous discussions, and even led to the creation of pages like this one (which is linked through a box on this Talk page), which can certainly facilitate the work now. I think this should be handled sooner than later, and that this is probably the best time to do it (given the positive atmosphere of discussion right now), as I find it inaccurate that in an article titled "List of best-selling music artists" we can find musical artists like R. Kelly or Kenny G and not Charles Aznavour. Salvabl (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I like this idea Never17 (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh wow!! what an excellent idea to point out the luminaries who have transcended through influence their innate musical talents globally. Charles Aznavour, Roberto Carlos and some who are just as notable such as Raphael, Rocio Jurado and Camilo Sesto. These entertainers have sold millions of records and in many different languages. For example, Charles Aznavour sings in French and Spanish and Roberto Carlos (Spanish and Portuguese). Having been born in Spain myself, I can attest to the fact that their fandom knows no limits. And to reiterate, they have sold millions of units throughout Europe and of course Latin America. Slowly but surely, and with great feedback from all the contributors mentioned, the Wikipedia Best-selling music artist list is striving to be a model directory second to none when compared to other listful websites. In closing, an excellent idea. Victor0327 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Taylor swift has to be one of the world's richest singers on the planet this year 72.0.185.238 (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Not relevant to the discussion here Never17 (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

An idea to move this article forward could be to draft this article on a personal page within the "User:" namespace. And edit it including all these suggestions and showing how we would like the article to look once edited. Paladium (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good :) Never17 (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point: drafting this article on a user page and using name space. Give me an example on how you would like to go about it: To coined Never17, I think it sounds good. The specifics are what I think we have to work on. Any pointers? again, it's a great idea. Victor0327 (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you have had a very good idea in proposing to create an article's draft, where users will be able to contribute, before implementing the changes in the article itself. Of course it can be done on a personal page, but I also think it can be interesting to use the existing page Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Artists (we could add a new section titled "sandbox", for example). That page is currently linked through a box at the top of this Talk page. Salvabl (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. We can use it on the existing page or add a new section, before implementing any changes. So maybe proposing something similar to a bio sketch draft of music artists and their respective claimed sales and unit certifications. This would be intertwined with relevant background information, including but not limited to, up to date information which would be consistent with collaborations from Wikipedia contributors and feedback from the editors. Again, this is just a proposal. I need a rebuttal from you gentlemen. Furthermore, with the input of the contributors and editors, we can pretty much make the necessary adjustments and proper modifications. Any thoughts on this venture? Victor0327 (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I like it Never17 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

In this particular endeavor whereas we are all striving for the best in suggestions, the ideas and courses of action cannot be made possible without the excellent collaborations of individuals such as Never17, Paladium, Salvabl and of course Richard3120. The contributions you gentlemen are making are more than just exemplary; they are excellent. Let's keep up the suggestions finding a way to successfully implement the changes in the article itself. Victor0327 (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Pleasure to work with you Never17 (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, my friend. I guess we are all waiting on some integrated feedback practically, and as you previously stated, on the methodology that will be implemented through a formal consensus from the contributors and editors. I guess we can wait on a response on what course of action is to be implemented.  Victor0327 (talk) 01:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that we can leave the first sections of the article, the introduction, the "definitions" section and the "standards" section as they are for the moment. Unless someone wants to propose adding something to them.

So what I propose is let's draft (into a subpage or a username sandbox) how we would like the section of the article called: ==Artists by reputed sales== , ===250 million or more records=== to read.

Once we do that draft, we discuss what we need to improve and add in that section and so on. Paladium (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed: the proposal of drafting a subpage or username name into sections with perhaps relevant background information intertwined into categories (artists by reputed sales) as you are suggesting is an excellent idea. Moreover, we can amplify your idea with (Artist by reputed sales from reliable sources to read perhaps as a start. Yes, and making improvements by adding through modifications and adjustments. Let's get the feedback going with other contributors making the same good suggestions and proposals. To reiterate, once again, an excellent proposal. Victor0327 (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

In 2006, which is the year of this IFPI list https://web.archive.org/web/20060410075412/http://www.esctoday.com/news/read/5531?PHPSESSID=34c streaming did not exist or It was a minority, and therefore album sales were considered physical unit sales. But already at that time there was the concept of Album-equivalent unit and single CDs were counted towards album sales.

Between 1994 and 2005, the IFPI counted three physical singles as an equivalent of one album unit in their annual Recording Industry in Numbers (RIN) report. - Quoting Album-equivalent unit

Now with streaming, it counts towards album sales. And including streaming in album sales is something accepted by regulatory and certifying companies. Putting the concept "Album-equivalent unit" as a requirement by which the "total sales" has to also include the sales of Album-equivalent units would lead to having to make several position changes in this table just based on respecting this criterion of the industry, without doing any original research. If we want to stick to pure sales, we should state "pure sales" in the text and not "estimated". This is the list for pure sales: Top Album Sales.

What do you think about this? @Never17, @Richard3120 . I would like to know what idea you have about this. I believe that if the certification companies accept the Album-equivalent units as sales, we would have to reflect that change in the article.

On the other hand, so that this list is not eternal and is easier to manage, if I could choose the admission criteria, I would raise the requirement to 150 or 200 million sales. If there are doubts that streaming sales are made at a cent of a dollar (or any other currency), we should reconsider whether the list consists of:

A) Keep how much money the "best-selling music artists" have raised or

B) Keep how many sales the artists have made.

These two are different criteria. Paladium (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

During the 20th century, there were few certification bodies, resulting in many artists from that era losing millions of certifications. Furthermore, countries like the UK, Australia, Mexico, Denmark, and Italy have certification processes ranging from fully automated to semi-automated systems. In those days, record labels were required to submit their sales data and a certification fee to the certifying bodies. However, record labels often stopped recertifying records after the promotional period ended to conceal sales data from the artists and reduce royalty payments. This issue has not been addressed in the above discussion. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. Within our role as information collectors we must also try to include research (from other authors) on the best-selling albums in the past. I think this article could have a section on the 20th century and earlier and talk about historical data on the artists who have the most difficult estimates to verify such as Bing Crossby, The Beatles, Elvis Presley and the like. ABBA and other oldies could also be included if we turned the article into a description instead of a list. As long as we have those references and reputable sources, I support including them.

An example of more solid information would be to count how many albums the Beatles are estimated to have sold per decade. Until before the certifications began. Consider certified sales and how much their sales volume was after certification began. That could tell us the margin of error. If someone invested their time in having this solid information and with information from third parties, it would not be original research, it would be from third parties, but you have to find that information first and capture it and that is difficult. Until we find that information, in my opinion, the certifications are more solid than the estimates.

On the other hand, I don't think we should have artists between 75 and 100 million units on the list. I would prefer this article to have more percentage of text explaining how the estimates have been calculated and breaking down the 10 biggest sellers in history instead of having dozens of artists and only 2 or 3 details being known about them. But that's my personal preference. The article seems like it will continue to be a list and it will not stop growing if more and more artists join at the bottom of the list. Paladium (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I think a limit of 100 million is fine, but we have to figure out how we list artists who weren't certified for their record labels but were tracked by the media to have sold enough to warrant placement here Never17 (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with raising it, but I think 150 is too much at the same time. I think 100 million should be enough as the minimum threshold. Erick (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Some sources on worldwide sales for the Beatles and Elvis Presley.

Some claims are inflated by other sources however

Ebony Magazine (1980) - Beatles sold 210 million records worldwide, Elvis Presley sold 170 million records before his death in 1977, Bing Crosby sold 360 million records

Windsor Star (1971) - The Beatles sold 56 million albums, 74 million singles, 3 million EP (133 million records)

Reading Eagle (1973) - Elvis Presley sold 160 million records worldwide

Ebony Magazine (1980) - The Jackson 5 have sold 93 million records worldwide, more than any other band besides the Beatles

The Evening News (1985) - The Beatles sold 100 million albums and 100 million singles from 1964-1978

The Irish Times (1977) - Elvis Presley has sold 100 million records worldwide since his death in 1977

The Brian Times (1982) - The Beatles sold 4 million records last year, Elvis Presley sold 2 million records last year

Manila Standard (1993) - Michael Jackson has sold over 200 million records

Jet Magazine (1990) - Michael Jackson sold over 110 million records during the 1980s

So Elvis sold just under 200 million when he died, The Beatles sold 200 million during that same timeframe.

Elvis's records were largely certified up to date by 2000 and started being certified in 1963.

The Beatles were first certified by 1964 in the United States, and were largely up to date by 2000 as well

Never17 (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The Beatles apparently sold 100 million albums and 110 million singles by 1980 (210+ million records), today they've been certified for 180 million albums in the United States alone. So to figure out roughly how much they've sold using certfications we'd have to add up the certified sales for all of their albums and then subtract it from the 100 million they were claimed to have when John Lennon died. Never17 (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Oasis have reached the threshold of 75 millon record sales wordwide.

It is fairly obviously that Oasis have sold 75 million worldwide. Definetly Maybe sold 15 million, Morning Glory has sold 23,500,00 and Be Here Now has sold 10,000,000. Dont believe the truth has sold over 7,000,000. They have other massive selling albums and the single Wonderwall has sold over 6 million copies. Can you look into this please as they have other studio and live albums am sure they have sold 75 million records. Can you help me please ?. Regards 178.167.187.48 (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Update Taylor Swift sales in Brazil

https://pro-musicabr.org.br/home/certificados/?busca_artista=Taylor+Swift&busca_tipo_produto=&busca_tipo_certificado=&busca_pela_gravadora=&busca_ano= 179.209.44.78 (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Please Update AC/DC, Metallica, Beatles, 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=Beatles&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=, please 2804:1530:401:2B00:197F:FBAA:DC0B:631C (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Nana Mouskouri

Making a topic so we can come to a consensus on Nana Mouskouri's placement on the list, she has various reliable claims of selling anywhere from 300 million to 350 million records. Nana released 800 albums reportedly and sold around 2 million units per year, if each album was selling just over 400,000 per release then it would add up to those figures Never17 (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to come to a consensus on artists like Bing Crosby and Cliff Richard after we solve this dilemma Never17 (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Also a-ha, who have sold 100 million records as per a source in their article 31.126.172.105 (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, i don't know how we tackle artists who lack certifications but have reliable and seemingly non-inflated sales figures for them Never17 (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

We could provide a reliable source and add them to the list. Paladium (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Never17: About Nanan Mouskouri, there are claims that she has sold between 300 and 350 million records, but these figures are exaggerated and incorrect. Firstly, the claim that she released 800 albums is highly incorrect. In reality, she has likely released fewer than 80 distinct albums. Often, an album is re-released in different countries with different covers and sometimes additional tracks in the local language. This does not make them different albums. For example, Madonna’s "Music" album had an extra track, "American Pie," in its European release, but it is still the same album as the U.S. version. Secondly, the assertion that she sells 2 million copies of each album annually is unrealistic. If true, she would consistently appear on best-selling album lists in various countries, which she does not. She has few certifications in France and rarely appears on official charts. Moreover, in the U.S., the largest music market, Nana Mouskouri has minimal presence in terms of certifications and chart positions. This lack of presence is consistent across most countries. Nana performed better in countries like Greece where you got a gold disc status for selling 10,000 only.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

True, i wasn't sure so i asked you guys Never17 (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2024

Change Drake's US sales number that's under Total Certified Units from 426.28 million to 291.5 millions. Assuming you are supposed to add US RIAA Albums sales with Single sales, 291.5 million is correct. Either way 426.28 million is an incorrect number that does not bear out in any source, and is disproved in the source listed. My two sources linked below. https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=top_tallies&ttt=TAA#search_section https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=top_tallies&ttt=TAS#search_section Chasezt (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you are right. On the page it writes: Drake Total certified units 530.8 million.

• US: 426.28 million. Reference: "RIAA: Searchable Database". Recording Industry Association of America. Archived from the original on March 22, 2021. Retrieved September 23, 2011.

And that states that on 2021, when the reference was checked, he had 426 million, but on the referenced you posted, that are up to date 2024, it states:

• 47,5 millions (albums) and 244 millions (singles) for a total of 291.5 millions.

The reference that you posted is: /gold-platinum/?tab_active=top_tallies&ttt=TAA#search_section and the one that is on the page is riaa.com/gold-platinum/ that is AWARDS BY MOST RECENT, instead of AWARDS BY TOP TALLIES. I think Top Tallies is an easier reference for the totals.

This happens with many artists. So maybe the numbers are high for some reason. Paladium (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This articles should be removed , it's too vague (Elvis Presley and Bing Crosby are the best-selling single artist )

Elvis Presley sold more than 1 billion records worlwide , Bing Crosby sold 1 billion records worlwide , The Beatles more than 1 billion worlwide and Frank Sinatra sold more than 150 millons !

Nobody sold more than them, eve Charts Masters made a count of Sinatra's sold avaible ; with more that 200 millons , Billboard in the 2005 published that Sinatra sold 600 millons worlwide !

This article should be removed....!

2800:BF0:170:B69:A929:5DDD:E7D5:1196 (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)