Misplaced Pages

Talk:List of best-selling music artists

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Excelse (talk | contribs) at 06:01, 18 November 2015 (→R. Kelly). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:01, 18 November 2015 by Excelse (talk | contribs) (→R. Kelly)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of best-selling music artists article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49Auto-archiving period: 10 days 
Former FLCList of best-selling music artists is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 27, 2005Articles for deletionNo consensus
November 13, 2005Articles for deletionKept
June 4, 2006Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
September 2, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 23, 2011Featured list candidateNot promoted
January 4, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
May 28, 2012Featured list candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured list candidate
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Musicians
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconLists Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit

It is essential to provide reliable sources when editing this article. For examples, see the references section. Unsourced or unreliably sourced additions will be removed immediately.

The list is frequently edited in good faith to update the certified sales figures; however, claimed sales figures need to be supported by reliable sources, preferably from news organizations.

Artists with claimed sales figures below 75 million may not be added to the list.

Whilst we encourage editors to be bold, it is highly recommended to discuss changes on this talk page before editing.

Below you can get an understanding as to when certifications for songs are added to the total certified sales of the listed artists.

  • One lead artist and one featured artist. (The issued certification(s) should be added to the total of both, the lead artist and the featured artist as both will have almost equal amount of part).
  • Two lead artists. (The issued certification(s) should be added to the total of both lead artists as both will have almost equal amount of part).
  • Two lead artists and one featured artist. (The issued certification(s) should be added to the total of both lead artists as well as the featured artist. Both lead artists will play a significant part in a song and the part of the featured artist also should be significant enough).
  • One lead artist and two featured artists. (The issued certification(s) should be added to the total of the lead artist and to the total of both featured artists as almost all should have equal amount of part).

The year next to markets below indicates how far back the certification systems go in each country. The percentages stand for the global market share based on a 2007 IFPI report.

James Taylor / 100m-records

Harout... I'm sorry, Did I mention him already?. How many of his certification sales? is it quite enough to support the 100m-records sales? (http://www.berkshireeagle.com/local/ci_28372833/james-taylor-first-new-album-hit-top-billboard)

I think this old legendary singer has a good certification sales in U.S.

What do you think? Thanks. Politsi (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he has enough certified sales for 100 million claim, 35 million in all. I put him up on the list. Is there a lower claimed figure for him? Because based on his 35 million certified units, the 100 million seems a bit stretch.--Harout72 (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Harout, so far. I just only found the 100m- claim but I think since Taylor's career begin since the mid 1960. His 35 million certification is good enough to support the 100m-claim. Especially comparing with the other old artist like Barry White or even Tina Turner.. Taylor is better. We should put his legacy on the list. Need your help. Thanks Politsi (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

James Taylor is already on the list politsi. —Indian:BIO 18:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

R. Kelly

I erase my question regarding with R. Kelly. I knew already. Thanks Politsi (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Rihanna to 200m-list

Harout.. I've see her certification sales has been reach nearly 178 million, and based on our calculation. It's meet the requirement already to support the 230 million sales.

I know we should keep the claim sales on the list always logical but I think 178 million against 230 million is logical, especially how spread of Rihanna's certification sales worldwide and how much of her popularity in many countries.

We can use these two reliable source for her 230m-claim and update her position as the best seller in the 200m-list (more than Mariah Carey).

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/music/posts/la-et-ms-rihanna-to-receive-icon-honor-at-american-music-awards-20131114-story.html http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/cov-kid-says-no-speed-6317064

What do you think? need your help. Thanks Politsi (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I believe she can be firmly moved up. —Indian:BIO 09:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
We should definitely move her up! She has more than enough to get that claims and a higher sales are reported too (262 million, which I am not saying those should be posted, but just a comparison.) — Tom 10:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Rihanna's certified sales are still some 13.5 million units away from her current claimed sales, 191 million. If we update her claimed figure now, we'll create a huge gap between her 177.6 million and the 230 million units claim, that's over 50 million units of difference. Clearly, she still hasn't reached anywhere near the 230 million mark with her actual sales, based on her available certified sales. That's just a promotional figure tossed about by her record company. I'd agree, however, to take her claimed figure to 200 million at the moment, if there is such a claim.--Harout72 (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Rihanna sold 200 million records, according to the Irish Mirror (http://www.irishmirror.ie/whats-on/music/preview-rihanna--aviva-stadium-1971078). I agree with Harout72 she'll need at least 200-210 million in certified sales to put her with 230 million. She'll release her new album soon, so in a couple months her certified sales will be near 200 million. For now we can use that source to put her with a 200 million claim. --Rudeby88 (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there a newspaper that claims 200 million? Irish Mirror is a tabloid, but we can use that temporarily.--Harout72 (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No Harout.. I've try.. At least we use that source for Rihanna until her certification reach 190 million and then we can updating her claim sales to 230m. Need your help. Thanks. Politsi (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Elle UK (http://www.elleuk.com/fashion/celebrity-style/rihanna-read-full-interview-elle-uk-april-2013) I haven't find anything else. --Rudeby88 (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, I had somehow overlooked between Rihanna's certi and Mariah's certi and thought they are close. Pretty poor judgement. —Indian:BIO 15:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Harout, I will erase the source from Elle (magazine) for Rihanna 200m-sales, because we already have one reliable source for her from Irish Mirror though it's a tabloid, but Irish Mirror is one of the national newspapers in the Republic of Ireland.

But a source from Women's fashion magazines in the list? Definitely not. I will erase it, It's enough for Rihanna to have one source for both 200m and 191m claim sales at this moment. Thanks Politsi (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Genesis to 100m-list

Harout. I was re-new several sources for some artists and decided to put Dire Straits to 100m-list because I've see their certification sales (43.4 million) is too low to support the 120m-claim sales.

Harout, I need your opinion. Genesis claim sales so far being published about 130 million by several newspaper recently but as we are know that their certification even less than 40 million.

I suggest we put them to the 100m-list by using this source (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/sitemap/free/1997/12/article/collins-may-be-gone-but-genesis-plays-on/296344.html)

The source is quite old, from 1997. But it's reliable because the last time Genesis very active in music world and releasing album is in 1997, their last studio albums (Calling All Stations) is released in 1997. Since then, there is no significant music impact from them.

But I will still searching more new reliable source for 100m-claim sales of them but meanwhile. We could use that source to put them at the 100m-list.

What do you think? Thanks. Politsi (talk) 07:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Good job on the Dire Straits. As for Genesis, I completely agree that they could not have sold more than 100 million records, but that source is extremely old. I went over the certifications they have collected after 1997, and this is what it looks like:
So, we're looking at some 3.16 million certified units. I know it isn't much, but we probably should not rely on a source from 1997. What do others think?--Harout72 (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Harout, as long as the source still active and the quality of contain is very match. It's Ok if we use it. Beside we always try to prevent any inflated figures in the list, right? And for your information, I have a reliable source for Neil Diamond's 100m-records claim. I was thinking that if you agree with me to kick out Genesis's inflated sales figure from the 120m-list. I will also kick out Neil Diamond from the same list and put him at the 100m list. Harout, I'm waiting from your final response. Thanks Politsi (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Is the source for Neil Diamond relatively new? If so, we should move him down on the list. Let's wait a few days for Genesis, if no comments or objections, we can proceed.--Harout72 (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I've found the source for Neil Diamond's 100m-claim from the National Review/http://www.nationalreview.com/article/262076/rock-and-roll-hall-lame-mark-goldblatt / 2011 edition. It's one of American news magazines and of the Major English-language current affairs and culture magazines. I think it's reliable to be use on the list for Diamond's claim sales. And for Genesis, I will wait at least three days from now. If there's no objections from other editor. I will proceed to put Genesis at 100m-list. Harout, need your other advised. Thanks Politsi (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
We can also use this for Neil Diamond (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/photos-e6freon6-1225783773107?page=7) but I prefer the source from National Review Politsi (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Harout... I can't wait any longer, to be honest. I really hate seeing Genesis standing in the list with a big claim sales and with their poor certification. I will put their name in the 100m-list but I will still searching the newer reliable source and replace it once I've found. But just undo it if you feel my action still un-neccessary. Thanks Politsi (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Politsi can you please use indent in your conversations? Its very difficult to read. See how I have aligned the content. —Indian:BIO 10:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Like this? I'm afraid any misstyping. Politsi (talk) 11:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks. —Indian:BIO 11:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Neil Diamond, Genesis, Bee Gees, and Julio Iglesias to 100m-list

Harout. Today, I remove their name from the 120m-list and bring them to the 100m-list. And it look's better for me.

What do you think? I'm sorry for not asking you first. Thanks Politsi (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Politisi, please do not proceed unless we're done discussing whether or not artists should be moved up or down on the list. That said, you've used this source for the Bee Gee, which doesn't immediately speak of the sales of Bee Gees, therefore, you should move them back where they were if that's the only source. Also, we decided to wait on Genesis for a few days, remember, why so soon. As for Neil Diamond, isn't there a newspaper?--Harout72 (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Harout. I'm sorry because I was too excited for Genesis, and for Bee Gees records sales claim source, I will change it with this one (http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/threecounties/hi/front_page/newsid_8855000/8855434.stm) and for Neil Diamond, I just only found this one (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/photos-e6freon6-1225783773107?page=7) but it's not clear, I think the source from National Review is better.. What do you think? thanks. Politsi (talk) 14:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Harout.. I see you revert my edit regarding with Bee Gees, then how about the source from BBC News that I've mention above? It's clear and reliable for their 100m-records claim. Please, I need your advised. Thanks Politsi (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The source of BBC says in excess of 100 million, meaning more than 100 million. So it's no use.--Harout72 (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do agree that we should let Bee Gees at the 120m-list after I read your explanation about ABBA popularity. Perhaps, Bee Gees has same experience success like ABBA did, beside after all, it's only about 120m of Bee Gees and still logical. But about Genesis and Neil Diamond, I suggest we kept them at the 100m-list and their source is reliable. I still do searching for some better source. Thanks Harout. Politsi (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ABBA to the 100m-list

Harout. I also kick out this group from the 200m-club to 100m-list because after I read a good article from WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124760651612341407), you should read it also. It's very clear to me that this band always telling lie to the world about their inflated 350m-400m sales figures. I'll put them to the 100m-list by using this source (http://www.skegnessstandard.co.uk/what-s-on/arts-leisure/abba-gold-and-the-uk-bee-gees-tribute-acts-to-perform-in-skegness-1-5373757) It's still new, reliable, and clear enough. Need your advised. Thanks Politsi (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Politsi, again you are using the same response structure. Please write your sentences one after another and donot introduce unnecessary paragraphing in talk page discussions. Coming to ABBA, please wait for Harout's input on this because it is a widely discussed topic about their sales. I have reverted your ABBA edit for now. —Indian:BIO 12:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but IndianBio... I suggest you better read the contain of what I've written carefully and do not read it in a rush. Harout always understand what I say in this talk page... So, as long as he understand my question and doesn't complaint about the way I write. It's enough for me. If you feel any problem with the way I write, do not push yourself to read. You're not under obligation to answer. Harout... please read the article from the WSJ, I really feel we should kick out ABBA from the 200m-club. Need your help. Thanks Politsi (talk) 12:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Politsi, please be reminded that this is an open talk page for all, and if I feel your way of writing is disrupting a normal talk page flow, might I suggest you to read WP:TPYES where it is clearly mentioned to keep formatting clear and use standard formatting. The standard is to use the indent and not paragraphs for single sentences and you would do better to follow it. —Indian:BIO 13:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Politsi, I believe we should leave ABBA where they are for the time being. ABBA may not have sold 200 million as some of our sources claim, but their actual sales could be around 120-130 million. Let's bear in mind that ABBA have experienced am enormous success in almost all parts of the world, and lot of those countries didn't have a certification system, so it's very difficult to track down their initial sales generated in the 1970s.--Harout72 (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
To Indian Bio... Thanks for remind me, but again... for me, as long as Harout doesn't complain about the way I write, I will still do it. But if Harout didn't like my writing style and warning me with some regulation like you did. I will follow it. and to Harout... thank you for your patient after all this years doing a lot of discussion with me. Politsi (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Politsi, you should not wait for me to complain, wikipedia is not my project :). You should follow the formatting policies (in this case) to make your writing legible.--Harout72 (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay then. It's feel better if that's come from you because of your patient on me so far. But actually, I'm very happy that IndianBio also keep an eye on this talk page. I mean after all, he also put a great attention and care for the list. Especially answering my question. I like it. Politsi (talk) 15:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Depeche Mode (50 million records sales) / They do not deserve to be on the list

Harout, to be honest. I feel we should kick out this Band from the list since their certification sales are not good enough to support the 75m-claim (less than 27 million). Beside, our source (from the 2009 edition/The Seattle Times) for them in this list is still said about "Albums" only, not "Records". Therefore, It's not appropriate to let their name in the list. But especially, after I found this source (http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/14672/) from The Baltic Times/2006 edition, inside it's was stated that they are only sold 50 million records and the source from The Independent/2009 edition/(http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/reviews/depeche-mode-wembley-arena-london-6104605.html) stated they are sold 50m-albums. That two 50m-sales claims is more reliable for them based on their poor certification sales. Harout, we should erase their name from this prestigious list. What do you think?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 05:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Politsi in this case. It does not tie up comfortably. Harout what do you think? —Indian:BIO 12:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right, Depeche Mode have only 22.5 million certified albums available which could support 62 million albums sales. Their overall certified sales are 26.3, which actually is enough to support 73.4 million claim only. So they don't even have enough for a claim 75 million records. When I updated the requirements some months ago, I failed to look at this. So, yes, they should be removed for now.--Harout72 (talk) 14:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no Tabloid Format as a source in the list.

Harout, starting from now I will try to keep all sources in here from a very prestigious Broadsheet newspaper. There's no tabloid format, even that Tabloid has an old history, But for some artists which is still stand in the list with a Tabloid Format as the claim source. We let them until we found the source from a Broadsheet newspaper format. We should do this to keep the list in a very high quality and prestigious format. Thanks Politsi (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

George Michael (80m-records)

Harout, I've seen he only has about 43.5 million in certification sales to support the 100m-claim but I wonder. What if we put him to the 80m-list since I feel his certification sales not really good for 100m-claim. I've found this source from 2013 edition (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/showbiz-news/george-is-ready-to-rock-stadium-997071 2013 edition) and from the 2008 edition of UK Reuters (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/01/16/uk-michael-autobiography-idUKL1631352320080116 reuters 2008 edition). I suggest we kick him from the 100m-club, and for comparing, even Santana who has over 60 million in certification only get 90m in claim sales. Harout, what do you think?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Politsi for George Michael, as for Santana, I would wait to see Harout's certification list. —Indian:BIO 09:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Speaking about Santana.. To be honest, I'm not in comparing argue but looking from the year since Santana begin their music career (in 1969) and looking how good their certification sales (60 million), I think.. It's not too much to put their name to the 100m-list, it's only about 10 million different from their usual claim sales in the list.. Again, this is my opinion. and again to George, Harout. Need your advise. Thanks Politsi (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Since George Michael has collected only 660,000 certified units, almost almost all from the UK between 2007 and now, I think the 80 million records would still be better and more logical, based on his . As for Santana, there is no need at the moment to change his claimed figure.--Harout72 (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

R. Kelly

Harout.. I'm sorry for mention his name again because I still curious, I mean after all if his certification sales is quite enough why we're not welcoming him to the list. Need your help, how many of his certification sales so far and how many he must have to gain the 100m-claim sales (http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20141026/NEWS/141029659)? Again Harout... I still curious, need your help. Thanks Politsi (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

R.Kelly would need 63 million certified units to be listed with 100 million claim, his available certified sales are only 53.7 million. He can, however, be listed with 85 million claim, if there is such a claim.--Harout72 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

#Artists by reputed sales images

I think that we should remove the images, they seems to be establishing that Beatles are best selling, although that position is disputed between Elvis and the Beatles. Having these images removed will be more due for the article. Excelse (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Categories: