Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 34

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Harout. First of all, I'm apologize for asking this question over and over again, and in this case you're not under obligation to answer it since I realize the source that I've bring is come from Daily Mail, the source that once I suggest that we should avoid to use for the list because it's a female tabloid. We already agree that we should wait until her certification sales reach at least 74 million then we will move her up to 100m-club, but I still feel her certification must reach at least 78 million to gain that claim and it will took a very long time since she's not releasing any new singles or album within this and next year. Harout, personally I suggest we move her up with 85m-claim by using this source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2007597/Glastonbury-2011-Beyonc-Knowles-Destinys-Child-getting-together.html), the quality of the article is quite good and I'm very feel comfortable to use that source and that claim for Beyonce until her certification reach 78 million. I'm not hoping you will answer my question this time Harout... But if you said "OK", I will change her position immediately and if you're not answering, I take that as "NO". Thank you Politsi (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I would personally wait a little bit more, but if you want to move her up using that source, it should be ok. The difference between her current certified sales and the 85 million, after all, will be some 13.5 million units. I see here some of her singles need to be re-certified as they have reached higher certification-levels, and that source is over three years old, so the figures must be higher by now. Well, ok then, let's move her up.--Harout72 (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks Harout. I've already move her up with 85m-claim. It's much more reliable for her now based on her certification sales. Again, I think her certification sales must reach at least 78 million in order to get the 100m-claim, because I look at Rod Stewart's certification as indicator. That old-guy singer has more than 77 million in certification but with a very old career (since 1969) and his claim sales "only" at 100-million. Therefore, any new artists who has the 100m-claim sales must be supported by a higher certification sales over Stewart. Politsi (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Now that we have her listed with 85 million, we'll let her stretch her certified sales all the way to 82-83 million before we consider the 100 million in sales.--Harout72 (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to List of best-selling music artists has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Beyonce record needs to be changed she has sold over 100 million http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-beyonce-album-review-beyonce-self-titled-album-reviewed-20131214-column.html 86.144.94.79 (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

See above. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to List of best-selling music artists has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

BEYONCE WORLDWIDE SALES ACCORDING TO FORBES 118 MILLION http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0622/celebrity-09-jay-z-sasha-fierce-inside-beyonce-empire.html 86.144.94.79 (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

See above. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to List of best-selling music artists has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

actual sales 150 million http://sabotagetimes.com/music/the-stevie-wonder-story , http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/stevie-wonder-blind-faith-865838.html 86.144.94.79 (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Harout72:, does his certification tally up for the sales? I would think not as most of his sales come from US anyways like Garth Brooks. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Stevie Wonder's available certified sales are only 33.9 million, that certainly doesn't suggest that Stevie Wonder could have sold anything above 100 million records. That's just a promotional figure.--Harout72 (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Depeche Mode has always been on this list of artists, have you forgotten about them or what is the reason they're not included anymore? Carlo renato raffanti (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

This list requires certain amount of certified sales for all artists based on the first year artists begin to chart. Depeche Mode needs 37.4% certified sales, which is 28 million certified units for a claim figure as high as 75 million. Their current available certified sales are 26.6 million. So, they need another 1.4 million certified units to get back on the list. BTW, the requirement of certified sales are posted on the talk page, see the second yellow box from the top.--Harout72 (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

On Depeche Modes WIkipedia site it gets stated that they've sold 100 million records worldwide. That is exactly were they where on this list before, who is right or wrong now it can't just drop from a 100 million sales to 26.6 million with a stroke of a keyboard. Carlo renato raffanti (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

DM were never listed here with 100 million sales, they were on the list with 75 million sales (see here). Other artists were removed from the list also during the same time. The requirements for certified sales changed as Japan's music market (which is the second largest music market in the world) made all of their certifications available going back to 1989, thus, this affected to all artists that have begun before 1994, which was previously the earliest year Japan's certifications would go back to.--Harout72 (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I notice the article suggests that the Bee Gees are from the UK. While it's true the Gibb brothers were born in the UK, they moved to Australia when they were kids. It was in Australia that the band was formed and had their success. This situation is no different to the other two Australian acts in the list: The guys who formed AC/DC and Olivia Newton-John were also all born in the UK, but they are considered Australian on this list because they moved to Australia when they were young and it was in Australia that they made they fame. Seems a bit inconsistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.228.242.223 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Harout. How are you? I need your help and opinion. I feel this old-girl singer has a good legacy in music world. How many of her certification sales so far? is it enough to support 75m-records? here the source (http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/entertainment/arts_theatre/beautiful-the-carole-king-musical-comes-to-fox-theatre/article_3d79dcb9-e16b-5b5e-a0ef-17d58e3e4cd3.html) from Gwinnett Daily Post. I think her records sales is quite good. Need your help and opinion. Thank you Politsi (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm only seeing 16 million certified units from the US, 660,000 units from the UK, and some 50,000 units from Canada. That's really not enough to suggest that she's sold 75 million records. We should leave her off this list, at least for now.--Harout72 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks Harout. Hopefully there's still enough space for other artists in the list, but if the list is look full already. I suggest we kick out Barry White from the list, his certification sales only less than 22 million. And I feel not comfortable seeing him carrying a 100m-records claim with that low certification sales. Thanks Politsi (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Kiss has sold more than 100 million albums, why are they under 75 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.255.99.182 (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Guys please add e.i sales in ur list!!! Hes an amazing singer!!! He has sold around 60m albums and 80m singles!!!! All over 140m claimed Soo plzzz plzzz plzzz!! Findout his sales and and add him in the list of best selling artists!! If you look out!!

U'll probably get 50-60 certified sales okaii, thanx Asher Salvatore!! (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

In U.S linkin park has sold!! 27.1 million albums and 23.1 million singles!! Certified!!! Equals to =50m sales in u.s alone

In U.k

the have sold 3.3 million albums and 2.2m singles!!! 

Which means =5.5m certified

In canada!! 1.44m albums and 240k singles!!

Which means =1.68m cerified

In australia!! 1.12 albums and 320k singles!! Sales of =1.44m

In germany!!!

3.85m albums and and 1.2m singles!!

Equeals = 5.05m

In France!!! 1.7m albums = 1.7m And!!! In Japan = 650k albums In itly = 200k albums in mexico = 550 albums In Switzerland = 220 In sweden = 180 In Finland = 240 In newzeland = 170 In Austria = 180 ....,........ And It all equals too!!! 67.8 millions certified!!! 95-100 millions claimed!!!

So please add this amazing band in the List!! and where I got all these sales??? The Wikipedia pages of there albums and singles!!! Put all the certifications sales 2gether with regions!! And you'll get 67-68 millions!!! Thanks

67m certified!!! 100m claimed sales!!

Asher Salvatore!! (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Linkin Park's available certified sales are 50 million, which can support sales figures of up to 71 million. Artists who've begun charting in 2000 need 70% certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

May someone add Avril Lavigne to the list. She has 80 million claimed sales, here is the source -(http://www.hollywoodtake.com/avril-lavigne-health-issues-serious-why-chad-kroegers-wife-has-gone-silent-september-video-64554) as well as 24.79 certified US Sales -(http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6685941/ask-billboard-avril-lavignes-best-selling-songs-albums) thanks. Jj4387 (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Her US certified sales are only 16.5 million. Her worldwide certified sales are 32.7 million units, that amount can support only 45.7 million in sales as she needs 71.3% certified sales. All artists that have begun charting in 2002 need their claimed sales supported by 71.3% certified sales, so for 80 million, she'd need 57 million certified units.--Harout72 (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

21 - 31 million 19 - 10 million 25 - 19 million 60 million albums worldwide

Someone like you- 9.9 million Hello- 12.3 million Make you feel my love- 1,470,055 Set fire to the rain- 5.9 million Rolling in the deep- 14.4 million Skyfall- 5 million Chasing Pavements- 1,429,000 Rumour has it- 2,120,000 Turning Tables- 1,258,000 53,777,055 million records by these singles alone worldwide

All of which are certified --123kingomar (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)123kingomar

TLC 4 studio albums alone have sold around 45 million albums. Then when adding singles it takes them well over 75 million records. ^[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/99790314-885a-4975-8614-9c5bc890364d --123kingomar (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)123kingomatr

Can you please add P!nk to this list she has sold at least a 110 million records to date. RCA even claim her sales are around 190 million. If you add all her studio albums and compilation albums then it equates to 43 million. ^[1]http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/publishing/1098133/publishing-briefs-pink-re-ups-with-emi-universal-inks-danger ^[1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopfeatures/9738180/Pink-interview-I-dont-live-in-the-Hollywood-bubble.html ^[1]https://rcarecords.com/artist/pnk/ --123kingomar (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)123kingomar

All artists on this list are required to have their claimed sales supported by certain amount of certified sales. The required certified sales are based on the first year artists begin to chart. This information can be found in the second yellow box from the top on this talk page. That said, Pink has begun charting in 2000, therefore, her claimed figures must be supported by 70% certified sales. Pink's certified sales currently stand at 50.5 million which can support sales figures of up to 72.2 million.--Harout72 (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to List of best-selling music artists has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Britney Spears sold 212.800.000 87.8.230.110 (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited

reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk

) 14:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Uptown Funk id now 11x platinum in Australia. http://www.noise11.com/news/aria-singles-pink-tops-chart-but-prince-dominates-20160430 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.36.14.56 (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Will be added only after it comes in the ARIA website. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

This page is fake since when half of the artists has sold 100 millions records? And Taylor Swift solding 125 millions just in the United States? You are joking with us? Someone just erase that whole huge mess!! --Sorinucu2007 (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Your edit is very difficult to understand. What exactly is your point? Are you saying that half of the artists sold more than 100 million? Are you saying that Taylor Swift has sold more than 170 million? The article has a lot of sources. Do you have any sources to support your claims? Sundayclose (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I say the opposite. Half of these people have not sold 100 millions records. At a few artists editors put the number of albums sold and at the other artists they put the total number of records sold. It's a total mess. Sorinucu2007 (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Please give us

reliable sources to back up your claims. Sundayclose (talk

) 14:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Harout, I notice that her certification sales already pass 187 million. I think we should erase the 191m-claim and let only her 200m-claim stand on the list. And when her certification sales pass the 190 million. We should practicing the 230m-claim for her. I'll erase her 191-claim. Need your opinion. Thanks Politsi (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you Politsi in this case. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah we don't need the 191 million anymore. We should wait for her certified sales reach at least 195 million, and then we'll consider adding the 230 million claim.--Harout72 (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Harout. Just in case you are very busy to look the artists certification. I want to remind us that Bieber's certification sales already pass 82 million, therefore the 75m-claim is definitely wrong now. This source from Visalia Times-Delta / http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/story/news/local/2016/03/27/bieber-fever-hits-central-valley/82325664/ is the only source so far for his 100m-claim sales and is the major daily newspaper of Visalia. We can use that source. I'll implemented it. Need your opinion. Thanks Politsi (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can use that now. I'm pretty sure his certified sales will soon pass the 85 million units.--Harout72 (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay Thanks. It's done. Politsi (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

His official website claims that "Bob Dylan has sold more than 125 million records around the world." ( http://bobdylan.com/news/fallen-angels-to-be-released-may-20-pre-order-today/ ) Is this source good enough? 37.120.41.125 (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that's not an acceptable source. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

How can Katy Perry's 'claimed sales', given as 92 million, be lower than her 'total certified units', given as 117.5 million? If she is guaranteed to have sold at least 117.5 million units, surely this must be the absolute minimum for her claimed sales. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Where is Eric Clapton?Jlo Fan 1999 (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

His certifications/sales do not meet the criteria. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually Eric Clapton's certified sales are 68.5 million, that is easily enough to support sales figures up to 100 million. It's just we can't find reliable sources that claim such figures for Clapton, so we can put him on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, by criteria I meant to say the sales only, but I guess misrepresented, should have said unavailability of source. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Harout72: can you please check if the Gold certification for Madonna's "Like a Prayer" was added to her tally? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't have that on my file. I added it both on my file and also on the list. Strange that I missed that, well it's only 5,000 units.--Harout72 (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Rihanna's ANTI is Gold in the UK (BPI). Rudeby88 (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone

It appears as though gaga's figures are out of date by a few years, I believe her real record sales are 173 million. Additionally, her certified sales are also out of date. She has 88 million certified sales in the US, not the 60 million stated.

I unfortunately do not have time myself to add up all of her certified sales in each country, so would anybody kindly volunteer to revise her sales?Mikgregor (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

What exactly makes you think that Lady Gaga's certified sales are out of date? All certified sales for all artists are updated here on daily based. For Lady Gaga's certified sales refer to this file. Every single certification issued by the markets that cover over 90% of the global sales is included on that file.--Harout72 (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

My 88 million cert sales in the US figure came directly from the RIAA's website. Adding them all up there brings 88mil sales, if I'm not getting something wrong here... Mikgregor (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

You are getting it wrong, it's only 65.5 million (6.5 million certified units of albums, and 59 million certified units of singles). You're most likely double counting some of the awards. You should count only the highest award, once. For other markets, see that file above I provided.--Harout72 (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Before I tell my wondering, there are some data you need to re-check thoroughly.

Robbie Williams 75M since 1996 (50.7 millions, but actually 48.4M)

Nirvana 75M since 1994 (45.45 millions, but 44.9M)

Reba McEntire 80M since 1987 (44.15 millions, but 42.7M)

Then, here are my another questions.

Eric Clapton and A-ha → may I know how many certificated sales that they piled up? Especially, I am afraid I have no idea about Eric Clapton's claimed sales...

I have watched the requirements and they have been enormously changed during the 2010s. We easily find out these fluctuations from our past archives. Then, you explain this point which is derived from

Lastly, this is my personal opinion. I think 20% for artists, who were charted before 1975, is too tolerant for our qualified policy of this list table. Moreover, it has huge gap for 1990(64%) and 2000(70%). What is your main idea for this very lower criteria?

61.84.250.198 (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a brief discussion on Eric Clapton

2010, and in 2010 Japan's music market share was 25% of the entire global music sales. But I have applied only 15% of it to 1989, and the rest of the 10% was applied to 2006 as their digital certification system was launched in 2006. I made an exception only because most of the western artists don't do well in the Japanese music market. I have posted all of the details above in the yellow box from the top on this page, each music market's size is specified based on the year 2010. Here are the detailed certified sales for Robbie Williams, Nirvana, Reba McEntire.--Harout72 (talk

) 17:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Harout72, thanks for linking, with only problem raised by my blindness of Japanese, Hahaha....

Well, I also say thanks for a more accurate file you picked, but all these values are located at main tables you already opened. I mean these three artists have not fulfilled there own criteria. Robbie needs 50.7M but he has 48.4M, Nirvana needs 45.45M but 44.9M, and Reba needs 44.15M but 42.7M. You already got rid of Green Day on your recent change of cerfitication policy on late 2015.

Next clips... like...

United States: 1958 (Year 2010 - 22.5%) Japan:1989: (Year 2010 - 25%) Germany: 1975 United Kingdom: 1973 France: 1973

And so on...

Then, did I understand a more closer about your explanation like... "Most of Western artists had lack of Japanese Market, which has been a very large portion of any musics on these days, so our elder musicians need to receive such a tolerate criteria like 20%. However, as Nineteen-Nineties started, our Global Share hugely progressed all around the world with approximately 64%. (the data from Year 2010 - 64%) (cf. Past Version was 45%)." ??? Well, I read them in Yellow box and main page of all tables. Please check my one. 61.84.250.198 (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

After the required percentages were raised, I only removed those artists that were missing more than 1.5-2 million units in certified units, including Green Day, Tupac Shakur, Depeche Mode. Those that were missing certified units below 2 million, I left them on the list. Note that Robbie Williams has over 800,000 units from Holland, which isn't included on the list because Dutch certs aren't verifiable at the moment. Those Dutch certs I retrieved were for until the year 2006. His total from the Netherlands might be close to 1 million by now.--Harout72 (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Harout. Giving the fact that Clapton and Hamasaki has a very high certification sales and qualified to be on the list but doesn't have a reliable source to support. I suggest we mention their name in the top of information section, meaning that we add another information like "Several artists is qualified to be on the list but without having any reliable source available to support the claim sales, therefore their name not include on the list, such as Eric Clapton and Ayumi Hamasaki". It will be better for raising a complete information of the list requirement and characteristic. Politsi (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Billboards Music Awards 2016 paid a tribute to Britney Spears and they updateher sales claiming she has sold 146 million records in the intro for her tribute. https://twitter.com/BSlovers/status/734823002605539328?lang=es

--Tialogen (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure anymore how many times I've said this to you on your own talk page, but this list requires all claimed figured be supported by certain amount of certified sales. The details of the requirements are posted at the large yellow box from the top on this very talk page. First, we don't use anything coming from Twitter, second for an inflated sales figure like 146 million records, Spears would need that supported by 59.4% certified sales, which means she'd need 86.7 million units of certified sales. Her current certified sales stand at 77.3 million from all markets.--Harout72 (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

My query was archived without being answered, so I've put it back up: How can Katy Perry's 'claimed sales', given as 92 million, be lower than her 'total certified units', given as 117.5 million? If she is guaranteed to have sold at least 117.5 million units, surely this must be the absolute minimum for her claimed sales. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of best-selling music artists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ifpi.fi/tilastot/kultalevyt/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—

Harout, I'm sorry for bothering you but I need your help. Today I've seen this source from Leader Publication/ http://www.leaderpub.com/2016/05/25/boston-performs-at-four-winds-new-buffalo/ which said about Boston (band), the source claim that band has sold 75m-albums. Albums only, not records. Harout, how many of their total certification sales? is it enough to support 75m-claim for albums only. Any change for them to enter the list?. And that's the only source I've found so far. Need your help. Thanks Politsi (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing 31 million certified albums from the US. From the UK, I'm seeing 220,000 certified albums. From Canada, 1.850 million certified albums. Germany doesn't have anything certified for Boston, neither does France. Smaller sized markets like Austria, Switzerland don't have anything certified for them either. Clearly, their fame is concentrated in north America only. For that reason, having only 33 million certified albums suggests that they could not have sold 75 million albums, perhaps 75 million records. But even that would be a stretch. We should keep them off the list for now, at least until their certified albums sales reach good 45 million.--Harout72 (talk) 02:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Harout. Politsi (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

When can we move Beyonce to the 100 million section? Her certified sales are now 71.8 million and she's been out since 1995 (2002 solo). Her sales meet the required 70% to be moved to the 100 million section. P.S when will Katy Perry move from where she currently is? (190.80.50.137 (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC))

Beyonce is onlhy considered for sales from her solo career. And for Katy Perry she will be moved as soon as a source is found levelling with her claimed certifications and sales. We haven't had a chance to find a good reliable source and hence could not move her although the sales listed are now lower than her certification. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I know that her solo sales matter but that's what I'm asking? I don't know how to reply on the same post. Hasn't she already met the requirements to be moved to the 100 million section. She has 71.8% of the 100 million claim or am I confusing the criteria for placement? (190.80.50.137 (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)) Oh and where is Pink if you don't mind me asking.

She has met the requirements, but we don't have a concrete sales source saying that she sold "100 million records". And certification =/= sales. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to List of best-selling music artists has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Based on some resources, Mariah Carey has more than 250 million records sold worldwide. I would like to update her estimated sales information. References: http://www.channelcanada.com/canadian-channels/nets/ctv/etalk-gets-personal-with-mega-star-mariah-carey-in-canadian-exclusive-interview-airing-tonight-monday-march-25-at-7-p-m-et-on-ctv http://www.mcarchives.com/index.asp?id=11119&PageNo=76 Alherpo (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done, No she hasn't that's just inflated sales from her record company. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 21:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Harout. What sources would give concrete claims of bey's 100 million record sales. Would an article from the Chicago Tribune work? (190.80.50.137 (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC))I listed it just in case it may. http://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-beyonce-album-review-beyonce-self-titled-album-reviewed-20131214-column.html

We have updated Beyonce's claimed figure not long ago. For a claim as high as 100 million, we'll have to wait for Beyonce to reach at least 80-82 million with her certified sales.--Harout72 (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

My query was archived again without being answered, so I've put it back up. If it's not answered this time ether, I'll assume it's alright for me to make the edit myself.

How can Katy Perry's 'claimed sales', given as 92 million, be lower than her 'total certified units', given as 117.5 million? If she is guaranteed to have sold at least 117.5 million units, surely this must be the absolute minimum for her claimed sales. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

No, if you can find a reputed source claiming her sales to be around that number or higher (please refer to the yellow box above to understand how the certifications and claimed sales are tallied) then we can add it. For Perry problem has been finding a reliable source. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, I'm probably not making myself clear. My point is that Katy Perry's certified sales are 117.5 million units. How, then, can it be 'claimed' that she has less than this (92 million)? We already know she has sold 117.5 million, so it makes no sense to say she is 'claimed' to have less than that. It is guaranteed that she already has sold more units than her 'claimed' figure currently states. In short, surely the 'claimed figure' must be more than, or at least equal to, her certified figure. Otherwise we're saying that she may have less sales than we already know she does. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

No, you don't understand one thing that certifications do not equal sales directly. An album can be certified for over 5 million by the RIAA in the US but in reality it might sell 2.3 million. Certifications include shipments by the label to the record stores for commercial purpose, they do not mean hard scanned sales at point of retail. So no, "It is NOT guaranteed that she already has sold more units than her 'claimed' figure currently states". We have to wait for a reliable source to come around. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:55, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to List of best-selling music artists has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Eminem claimed album sales should be 172 million, source: http://www.statisticbrain.com/eminem-album-sales-statistics/

Bzg0515 (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Unreliable source and please read the top yellow big box to understand how the sales are compiled. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to List of best-selling music artists has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi! Mötley Crüe should be on the list with more than 100 million recors. http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6236556/motley-crue-final-tour-is-a-must-see-here-are-6-reasons-why Slowderak (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Harout72 any update on their certifications? Although seems like they won't be remotely close. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 22:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

If I read the standards for the article right, there would need to be certifications for 35 million of the sales (34.5%, rounded). —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Correct C. Fred and RIAA itself has such less certification than that, they can never have 35 million my hunch says. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 22:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

They're not as far off as we think. I tallied the certifications at Mötley Crüe discography, including compilations and live albums, and I got a little over 27 million units. —C.Fred (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Good work, seeing that they hardly release any music nowadays that achieve much certification, I would say no to their listing for now. But I would still wait for Harout's word document where all the markets are listed. Who knows, it might even barely pass. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 23:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Mötley Crüe need their claimed figures supported by 43.2 % certified sales as they've begun charting in 1983, that would be 43.2 million certified units for a claimed figure as high as 100 million. Their available certified sales at the moment stand at 27.8 million. Actually, with that much certified sales only, they wouldn't qualify for this list even if the claim figure was 75 million.--Harout72 (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

On Janet's wiki page that she sold 160mil records so you guys need to update this information on her record sales

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Jackson

TeonChap (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It's been 20 hours since you've bee TeonChap (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

n on here and you still haven't updated the information i gave you, please you gotta tell me something TeonChap (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Rihanna's Kiss it Better is Gold in New Zealand. Rudeby88 (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there a document listing the certifications used to calculate the figure for Bryan Adams' sales? By my calculations his Australian sales would be 1.54 million, including the sales for So Far So Good which is 7x Platinum according to the latest Catalogue Albums chart by ARIA https://web.archive.org/web/20160611102346/http://www.ariacharts.com.au/charts/catalogue-albums-chart

Also, Bon Jovi and Metallica have both sold at least 120 million. What certified sales figure do they need to be boosted up (both started charting in 1983)? Savvi72 (talk) 10:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Bryan Adams: Here is the document with all his available certified sales. The 7x Plat. for So Far So Good is included. Don't know where you're getting the rest.
• Bon Jovi: Once their certified sales pass the 85 million, we can use a claimed figure as high as 110 million, if there is such a claim out there for them. For 120 million, we should wait until they pass the 95 million mark with their certified sales. We don't want to create a huge gap between the certified sales and the listed claimed figure.
• Metallica: The 120 million should be considered after at least 95 million certified units are accumulated.--Harout72 (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for answering my Bon Jovi/Metallica question.
• Bryan Adams Australian sales should be 1,792,000, according to ARIA. Originally I thought it should've been 1.54 million but my calculations were incorrect. You can check my query with ARIA here Savvi72 (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello Harout72, could you please tell me how Bryan Adams Certifications in Japan look like? thank you very much.--Jlo Fan 1999 (Talk) 14:05, 17. Jun. 2016 (CET)

Jlo Fan 1999 please check the above section where Harout has linked his document for Bryan Adams certification and it has all the entries for his Japanese cert. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 12:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Per earlier discussion[1], I have now added source for the 500 million figure from a news agency source. There are many google book sources though but I hope this will work. Excelse (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually I've read that source a long time ago and figure out if we can use it to add 500m-claim of the Beatles, but since The New Yorker is an American magazine of reportage, commentary, criticism, essays, fiction, satire, cartoons, and poetry. It's should be unreliable, the source for the list to support the claim must be came from a Broadsheet Newspaper. In this case, the contain of the source is GOOD and I agree we use that source for Beatles's 500m-claim. Harout and IndianBio, I actually want to hear your opinion about this. Thank you. Politsi (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Is this included in totals cert sales? I mean 4x and 5x platinum for studio albums.http://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&se=bruno+mars#search_section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.36.0.18 (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Harout72 could you please show me te certifications document of The Black Eyed Peas. Thank you very much.--Jlo Fan 1999 (Talk) 10:06, 23. Jun. 2016 (CET)

Here you are.--Harout72 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you ;)--Jlo Fan 1999 (Talk) 16:45, 23. Jun. 2016 (CET)

Harout. Need your help to keep an eye on their certification sales, perhaps there's some re-certification of their singles or albums which possible to bring them back to this best-selling club. Again, I like this group and need your help. Thank you. Politsi (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Attention please, I don't know what are you guys talking about. But I suggest you to do a better contribution to find a reliable source for Ayumi Hamasaki's and Eric Clapton's claim sales, and also a reliable source for Katy Perry's new claim sales. That's the best thing we should do I think, and about the rules of how this list work. Let Harout72 handle it, he's far more expert than us. Thank you. And a note for Bluesatellite, (Kamu orang Indonesia ya?) Politsi (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Politsi stop being a jerk. Everyone has a right to their opinion about a pertinent issue and Harout72 does not

own this page and neither do you. So don't ever dictate what others can or cannot do in the talk page. —IB ^{[ Poke}

] 06:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please calm down IndianBio. you need to reduce your high emotion because I find a lot of your written seems in very high tension. I don't like being a jerk, and neither us. I just confuse with the topic you guys talking about in this section and I think by updating this list with a reliable source and a reliable claim sales (while let Harout72 keep updating the certification of each artists on the list) is much more better. If we want to make this list excellent, then we must do our best to complete the contain inside. Finding a reliable source for Hamasaki and Clapton, also reliable claim sales and source for Perry is more urgent now. I give a lot of credit to Harout72 for his consistency keeping the reliability of this list, especially in the last four years. By the way, thanks for replying my post.Politsi (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You can either stop your nonsense or I will report you for disrupting a discussion. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please be nice! and stop saying "jerk" or "nonsense" directly to another editor. Please be have, I believe you familiar with the Wikipedia:No personal attacks rules!. You supposed to be banned from Wikipedia editor club because you are directly attack other editor with word "jerk" and "nonsense". And by the way, this is my section now. Find a Reliable source!. Like you said Everyone has a right to their opinion about a pertinent issue, including me. I will never response any harsh comment, stay focus to the section issue. Thanks Politsi (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You are behaving like a jerk and I don't care. Yes everyone has a right to their opinion, but you did not respect others, rather tried to claim a

WP:OWN issues with this list, but you never listen. Its either your English issue or you just don't understand policies. So, finally, STOP. —IB ^{[ Poke}

] 10:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

And who are you? why you so confidence saying other editor as a "jerk"? You're not the owner of this list, like you said no

WP:OWN. Whatever all editor saying or comment in this talk page, please avoid any personal harsh comment like "jerk" or "nonsense". It's very personal attack. So I'm DONE with you IndianBio. And I'm sorry Harout72, for bringing your name because you and me are work so hard to make this list reliable, I think we should focus to find the reliable source for those artists. Because that's the most important element in this page (No reliable source, NO NAME on the list). Politsi (talk

) 11:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh for gods sake, get over yourself. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh for gods sake and according to Wikipedia:No personal attacks rules. IndianBio, please focus to the topic and be nice.Politsi (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

to Harout72, if you feel this section is not important, just ignore it and stay on your work. I'm (we) counting on you. Politsi (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Politsi, finding reliable sources for those aforementioned artists has nothing to do with what they're talking about. They're talking about streaming songs. They actually have a very good point. This was something I knew, but now that they brought this topic to our attention, it's actually worth looking at the actual sales figures of especially those songs that receive high level of certifications mainly generated by streams.--Harout72 (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Harout. I just found a reliable source for Katy Perry's 100m-records but not from a Broadsheet newspaper but from Association of Independent music Publisher. It's already use on Katy Perry's wikibio after I do some discussion with the main editor in there (Snuggums). It's only a matter of time that a news organization will took that claim for Perry's profile, and I will bring Perry to the 100m-club.

Eric Clapton

For Eric Clapton, I just found a reliable source for Clapton's 80m-albums claim sales, just albums not records and it's already use on his WikiBio, that claim come from Clapton's biography which is written by Chris Welch. I believe Clapton's certification sales total for Albums only, able to support the 80m-albums claim but if not, please Inform me Harout. Because from now on, I will keep an eye for any News organization who use the 80m-albums claim for Clapton. Thank you Politsi (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Clapton has over 61 million certified albums. We can comfortably put him up on the list. Which one of the four sources on his bio did you have in mind?--Harout72 (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Harout, yesterday I add this source to Clapton's Bio (https://ruslania.com/books/938130/eric-clapton-the-world-s-greatest-living-guitarist) the source contain is a quick summary of Clapton's 2016 biography that written by Chris Welch, he is a music journalist, reviewer, critic, and contributor at The Independent Newspaper. Inside, it was stated that Clapton has sold 80m-albums worldwide. I've been encourage the editor at Clapton's bio to not revert my edit, because it's very reliable. The 80m-albums claim has been published by a music contributor of news organization. Harout, is it possible using that source to bring Clapton to the list? Because we only use a source from a news organization or music magazine. Thanks Politsi (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't need to use a sales website like this (it is the Russian Amazon.com lol). We can directly source it using {{cite book}}. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No, we should avoid using that source.--Harout72 (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay then. That source also has been deleted from Eric Clapton's bio. I don't know who's do that, I will check it latter. If that source is not applicable for the list, I agree. But it should be okay to be use in Clapton's wikibio. I will try to revert it. Politsi (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

If a book is deemed unreliable it should not be used in Clapton's bio also, and I know for a fact there is a Clapton fan who introduces false information in every Clapton article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Who's put that claim?. Politsi (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I think from now on we should also check the "real sales" whenever possible, in addition to certification. The RIAA has include streaming into all their certifications, and it creates a huge gap between the certified units and the actual sales. For example, Ariana Grande's album My Everything was certified double-platinum for 2 million equivalent units, while in fact it only sold over 600k copies (only one-third of certified units). Another example, Rihanna's "Work" received triple platinum (3 million equivalent units), but it only sold 1.5 million copies (half of certified units). We can't rely too much on certifications right now, time goes by, system changes. Maybe someday we can create List of best-streamed artists, I don't know. But certainly streaming =/= sales. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to open this topic, before

Nielsen SoundScan before updating their claimed sales. Regards. Bluesatellite (talk

) 03:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

100 streams are equivalent to 1 download. That is only 1% of the Gold (500,000) and 1% of the Platinum (1,000,000) certifications. In other words, the Platinum award is based on 990,000 downloads and 10,000 streams. The latter isn't a significant number to be concerned about. It works the same way for album streams.--Harout72 (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No no, Harout72. Artists can get Gold, if they achieve 500,000 equivalent album units. One equivalent unit = 1 album copy = 10 downloads of album's tracks = 1,500 album's song streams. That being said, they can get Gold record with 100,000 copies of album + 150,000,000 streams (equaling 100,000 units) + 3,000,000 individual tracks (equaling 300,000 units). See? Only 100,000 album sales, yet getting Gold (500,000 units). There's no such percentage limit, like 1% as you said. That's why My Everything was certified double platinum with only 692,000 copies sold. Bluesatellite (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

And what about "Bad Romance"? Getting 11× Platinum, but only selling 5,600,000 copies. It means that the song's video/audio has been streamed over 540,000,000 times (equaling 5,400,000 song sales). Bluesatellite (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have a point here about the high number of streams, but let's bear in mind that albums certifications are also based on shipment rather than sold units. You're also right about some of the songs having received high levels of certifications, yet their actual sales are low, due to streams. But the gap between the issued certification levels and actual sales doesn't seem to be big for most songs. I think we are overall on the right track here at this list when it comes to requiring higher percentage level of certified sales for newer artists. But we can every now and then look at the actual sales also when updating sales figures. Unfortunately, it's not always that we have recent actual sales figures available. The certifications can be very recent, yet the available actual sales figures for single can be months old.--Harout72 (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I would say post 2005 artists (the digital/streaming era) criteria should actually be more higher seeing the rise in certification levels using streaming. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The Steaming actually affects all singles and albums. So regardless of whether it's Madonna releasing a new album or Rihanna, both are treated the same way. A policy change of that kind could be implemented to lists for albums/singles, but it wouldn't work here.--Harout72 (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps there should be some distinction for how much of the certified units that each artist has in each country comes from streaming for each post 2005 artist. It may take some work but the end result will make the figures less miss-leading as the current figures assume all physical sales, which makes the artist appear more successful in a world where most sales are digital.--EnderAtreides117 (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@

What I'm trying to say is that we can't rely on certifications too much anymore. Sadly, high certification does not automatically means high sales. Streaming makes everything complicated lol. Not to mention the overlapping of album and single certification. For example, if Rihanna's "Work" sold 5,000,000 copies, it would contribute 5,000,000 single certified units and 500,000 ANTI album certified units (10 downloads of individual song counted as 1 certified album unit). The same goes to streaming, the YouTube views of "Work" contribute to both single certification and album certification. I just want us here to realize and to be aware of the impact of this new RIAA rule. We should be careful when updating the "claimed figure" on this page, because recent artists seems to rise so quickly. Bluesatellite (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

In order to have a clearer picture about how badly streaming affects the total number of certifications of each single, I'd like to look at those Lady Gaga's singles that have both certified and actual sales available. Let's compare the US certified sales with actual sales, and then we'll add them up to see the total difference.

• "Just Dance"=Certified 8x Platinum (8 million units) VS 7.1 million actual sold units.
• "Poker Face"=Certified 10x Platinum (10 million units) VS 7.3 million actual sold units.
• "LoveGame"=Certified 3x Platinum (3 million units) VS 2.63 million actual sold units.
• "Paparazzi"=Certified 4x Platinum (4 million units) VS 3.5 million actual sold units.
• "Bad Romance"=Certified 11x Platinum (11 million units) VS 5.6 million actual sold units.
• "Telephone"=Certified 3x Platinum (3 million units) VS 3.4 million actual sold units.
• "Alejandro"=Certified 2x Platinum (2 million units) VS 2.57 million actual sold units.
• "Born This Way"=Certified 4x Platinum (4 million units) VS 4.1 million actual sold units.
• "Judas"=Certified 2x Platinum (2 million units) VS 984,000 units actual sold units.
• "The Edge of Glory"=Certified 3x Platinum (3 million units) VS 3 million actual sold units.
• "You and I"=Certified 3x Platinum (3 million units) VS 2.3 million actual sold units.
• "Applause"=Certified 3x Platinum (3 million units) VS 2.64 million actual sold units.
• "Do What U Want"=Certified Platinum (1 million units) VS 1.2 million actual sold units.

Certified units= 57 million VS Actual sales=46.3 million

Note that the 10.7 million units of difference comes mainly from "Bad Romance" (5.4 million) and "Poker Face" (2.7 million), total 8.1 million. And we're looking at 13 songs, some of which have slightly higher actual sales than certified sales, and some have equal amount of units for both certified and actual sales. I think we all can agree that we don't need a policy change just yet, but I agree that we should scrutinize the sales more when updating claimed figures of newer artists. And we normally don't create a huge gap between the certified sales and the claimed sales. This can be seen in many discussion threads that we've had at this talk page.--Harout72 (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

You should check the effect of streaming on 'Baby' by Justin Bieber. BrunzPOP (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Bieber's "Baby" was certified 12x Platinum with only 3.9 million song sales. Bluesatellite (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Blusatellite that at least we need to make something about those differences, because the stream already changed the music industry, including the certifications and sales and the newest artists or based more on stream (single-selling artists or wherever you call) need to have other criterias or something like that.

talk

) 00:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, what's the main big problem in this issue that bring up by Bluesatellite. It's looks confusing and complicated for me. Is there any possibility that there will be any new construction of the list, and we will starting all in list from zero because of new rules?. Thanks. Politsi (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

LOL, of course this is complicated, that's why I open up this discussion. Streaming does make it complicated. Don't you think a 3-million song getting 12x platinum is normal? Of course we don't have to start it from zero, since most of older artists do not upgrade their old certifications (yet) to this new criteria, such as Elvis, Madonna, Mariah, etc. We just need to be more careful for current artists. Rihanna, Taylor, Bieber climb this page so quickly. Per Hraout72 said, we should scrutinize the claimed sales for newer artists. Bluesatellite (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok then. I think we're done with this issue, any additional issue?. Politsi (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No we are not done with this issue. We are still discussing and continue to do so unless we achieve

WP:CONSENSUS. —IB ^{[ Poke}

] 09:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

IndianBio, I was under the impression that we agreed that we'll look at the actual sales figures also when updating claimed sales. Did you have any other suggestions other than what we agreed on? I'd like to mention that I'm going to add all available actual sales on my files for newer artists next to issued certification (much like what I've done here for Katy Perry and Justin Bieber) for the US market. The US market's conversion rate for streaming seems to be rather low, that's what's causing all this issue we're facing. Instead of 100 Streams = 1 Download, the conversion rate should've been 1000 Streams = 1 Download. By having the actual sales on the same file, it'll be helpful when it's that time again to update somebody's claimed figure. We'll look at the difference between the certifications issued for the songs and the available actual sales for those very songs. --Harout72 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I was going by this statement from Blue, "We just need to be more careful for current artists. Rihanna, Taylor, Bieber climb this page so quickly. Per Hraout72 said, we should scrutinize the claimed sales for newer artists". So was looking for any concrete solution as to how we can scrutinize the claim for sales incase of newer artists. Do we need a discussion on the maximum % of the certified/claimed sales? Hence I said that discussion might be progressing. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The required percentages for certified sales are based on market share each country represented in the year

2010. For example, if an artist has begun charting in 2000, we want to see what percent of the global sales the countries whose certified sales we look at represent combined. That is 76.7% (I have converted each market's share and posted at the bottom of the second yellow box from the top on this talk page). And our required percentage for certified sales is 90% of the 76.7%, that's because often times some of the records fail to reach certification levels, and are never certified. Thus it's 69% (rounded 70%) for the year 2000. We could require all of the 100% of the 76.7% for the year 2000, for instance. But I'm not sure if that would be fair. In my opinion, we'd be better off with looking at all available actual sales provided by Nielsen Soundscan.--Harout72 (talk

) 01:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

If we look at the available sales from SoundScan will that help us in determining the certified sales versus the actual sales? Lets consider the case of Justin Bieber and "Baby" or Lady Gaga and "Bad Romance". If we find that a song is over certified for streaming with very low actual sales, how should we proceed with the overall certification and the sales % conversion. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 10:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

We will still keep the certified sales as they have always been, we'll still update the same way on the list. But when it comes to updating the claimed sales of any of those artists, by looking at the actual sales figures, we'll know by how much each song is over certified due to streams. And we'll deduct the difference between the certified sales and the actual sales and ignore the certified units for only the songs that have recent actual sales figures. For example, Justin Bieber's certified sales for singles stand at 53 million, but if we only add the sales figures for the songs that have available actual sales figures, his total for singles goes down to 39.68 million. That is 13.3 million less. That will immediately give us a clear picture as to whether or not we should update his claimed figure. Note that we'll have to do all of this on the talk page, in other words, the column for certified sales, will still have the RIAA certified sales as they appear on their site.--Harout72 (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay nice. Harout, do you think we can have a subpage where we can keep a tab of the recent artists (where this issue arises mainly) with certified RIAA sales and SoundScan sales? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any plans for creating a subpage personally. But we can later include a brief description in the lead about how streaming helps singles and sometimes albums get over certified, for that reason newer artists' certified sales may sometimes be higher than their claimed sales.--Harout72 (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

For me personally, I think we should not creating a new subpage relating with this list. It will be look very confusing (having two different kind of list but with same purpose), I think we should only not create a huge gap between the certified sales and the claimed sales, especially for recent artists who has a very quick and high rise certification sales like Rihanna and Katy Perry. Politsi (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Look at Rihanna's RIAA certificates. http://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&se=rihanna#search_section Her all singles updated in 2015 with streamings it's all streaming not sales. And her 3 albums (Good Girl Gone Bad, Anti, Unapologetic) updated with streamings. Rihanna's records sales can't be more than 180 million. Her all certificate almost consist of streamings. In 2014 confirmed her records sales 150 million: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/tv/x-factor/371316/Simon-Cowell-s-desperate-plea-for-Rihanna-to-save-failing-X-Factor-as-a-fourth-judge She hasn't sold more than 50 million records last two years. —Navyiconer (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Daily Star is not reliable source for sales! I can find 30 other more reliable sources than yours saying that Rihanna has sold 200+ records. Just to remind you, not all the Recording Industry Bodies of a certain country are updating their database regularly, or you need to pay a fee in order for them to do that, which sometimes labels forget it or don't care. It's not only RIAA as a certification body to judge a certain amount of sales. — Tom^(T2ME) 16:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

While Rihanna's sales overall are plausible, there is over 21.6 million units of over certifications I'm seeing for her US certified sales. That is generated by streaming. See my file here.--Harout72 (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying that at some point in a very near future we should update her sales on the upper side, I think that 200 is a very reasonable number for her, for now. I was just replying to the user above who tried to disregard them. — Tom^(T2ME) 17:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Harout, all concerned. Please see the below NZtop40 website at the bottom. It mentions that it is now 15,000 SALES/STREAM EQUIVALENT FOR SINGLES AND 7,500 FOR ALBUMS (gold) and 30,000 SALES/STREAM EQUIVALENT FOR SINGLES AND 15,000 FOR ALBUMS (platinum). We need to update our certifications accordingly and God knows when that was changed also. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Update. I found that this was changed from June 2016. So any singles released after that should have 15,000 for gold and 30,000 for platinum. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, I never saw this. So, we'll apply the newer levels for singles released on/after June 17, 2016.--Harout72 (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

One caveat, the link says it will be used in the chart from June 17, 2016 onwards, so that essentially means that the singles released before that chart are already calculated with that certification. What do you think? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The Archived version of the chart from June 14, still doesn't have the newer levels, but the June 17 chart already does. So it does look like the levels will be applied to those released on/after June 17.--Harout72 (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, did we have any new recent releases that you can think of? :S —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No, nothing that new. The newest one with Gold cert is "Too Good" but it's been on NZ chart for 6 weeks already.--Harout72 (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Californication by Red Hot Chili Peppers has been certified 6x platinum. BrunzPOP (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Harout, can you check that Madonna's singles are all updated in the doc per SNEP entry? I found many discrepancies with Madonna singles discography where Silver certification was used for many of them and just updated. Hence asking you to cross verify. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the newer database of SNEP doesn't bring up the Silver awards issued in the past. They simply have not programmed the DB to recognize the Silver awards. It's not like all previously issued Silver awards have somehow been upgraded to Gold. All of the following Singles that have received Silver in the past and come up as Gold in the newer DB, I'll post below first in newer DB, then in the older archived DB. Two of the past Silver awards cannot be found in the archived version of older DB, but can be found in Infodisc's DB.

• "Beautiful Stranger", in the newer DB | in the older DB
• "Don't Tell Me", in the newer DB | in the older DB
• "American Life", in the newer DB | in the older DB
• "Secret", in the newer DB | in the older DB
• "American Pie", in the newer DB | in the infodisc
• "Die Another Day", in the newer DB | in the infodisc DB

So, you should leave those Silver awards in place at her singles discography.--Harout72 (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for clarifying it Harout, seems like a glitch in their system. I will revert the change to reflect the Silver awards. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Umm Harout72 did they remove that artist and certification link from Infodisc? I can't find it anymore. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Found them for Albums and Singles. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Infodisc updated their site some six months ago, that's why everything was moved. I had the the link for singles above. We also have them on the list, the updated links.--Harout72 (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Harout. I need your opinion. Can I raise Rihanna's claim sales to 210 million records?. I have a source from the 2016 UK national tabloid edition for her. We can use it for while, and when her certification pass the 200 million barrier. We move her claim up to 230 million. What do you think?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Politsi, we should not raise the newer artists' claims that easily anymore. Actually, we talked about all this in the other thread, I guess you missed it. The newer artists' get to have some of their singles and even albums over certified due to streaming. For example, Rihanna's US certified sales currently stand at 145.050 million, but when I deduct all those differences between over certifications and available Soundscan figures, it goes down to 122.040 million. So, considering all that, Rihanna's overall certified sales is 23 million units over certified, and that is only by looking at US certified sales and US Soundscan figures.--Harout72 (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks Harout. Since I see there is no reduction of the certification total sales of artists in the list. I still asking you and all first in the talk page, if I found some idea especially for a new claim sales. For Rihanna, since her over certified about 23 million units, so I thought we possibly raise her claim sales up to 210 million when her certification sales pass 200 million. But still I will put all new issue to the talk page first, and need your opinion as usual. Thank you Politsi (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Harout, just in case if Rihanna's certification total at 200 million plus. We could use this source for 210m-claim of her (https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/55682/has-pop-princess-rihannas-career-gone-up-in-smoke/) from The Sun (United Kingdom). Inform me if that source is unreliable, but I think we can use it for temporary. Thanks Politsi (talk) 05:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Politsi, The Sun is really considered unreliable for factual news and reporting as they are basically a tabloid. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand that we should avoid source from a tabloid and more concentrate to find sources from Broadsheet Newspaper. We should avoid any sources from The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, or any alternative tabloid. In order to make this list always in high quality, but don't forget that we need the best claim sales for those artists and it's not easy to find that out. Since there is a Streaming Issue on newer artists, we can not easily to raise a claim sales. Harout72 and me, once agree that Rihanna's claim sales will be raise to 230 million when her certification pass the 195 million. But with Streaming Issue, we can not do that again. We should not create a huge gap, and when Rihanna's certification sales pass 200 million, the 210m-claim is the best claim sales for her NOT the 230 million as the Los Angeles Times say. The Sun (United Kingdom) is still a news organization, and we still able to use that source for Rihanna until her certification sales pass the 210 million, and then maybe we can use the 230m-claim for Rihanna from the Los Angeles Times. Please bear in mind, we use Daily Mail and Eugene Weekly for Beyonce and Bruno Mars ONLY for temporary. And if you see the edit history of the list, you will find out how I make all sources on this list very reliable. Harout72, I need your opinion if you have any interest in this Rihanna's issue. Thank you Politsi (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

No need to lecture me on this Politsi, I'm well aware of how we update the sources and no one here is questioning your additions to the list. Soemtimes, just calm down and see how exceptionally irritating you sound. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I just answering your response regarding with The Sun (United Kingdom) for future Rihanna's 210m-claim sales. I have a very reliable source of 230m-sales for Rihanna even more than that (264 million), but we can not use those source until Rihanna's certification adequate enough. In this time, the 210m-claim is the most useable. Harout72, I really need your opinion. Thank you Politsi (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Politsi, I have included a brief explanation at the end of the list's lead, which informs readers/editors that the certified sales of the newer artists can sometimes be higher than their claimed figures due to streaming. So, unless Rihanna's certified sales reach 205+ and we have a reliable source for 210, we shouldn't consider updating her current claim. The Sun is probably not a source we want to turn to.--Harout72 (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay then. Thanks Politsi (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Billboard reported that Rihanna has sold 54 million albums and 210 million digital tracks WW. This is the article: http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/hip-hop/6859178/rihanna-anti-million-anti-downloads Mat 1997 (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Just read the above section can't you? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I see absolutely no explanation in the lead of a major parameter/definition of this list: it is the "List of best-selling music artists after 1960". Some part of the first note should be in the lead sentence "Certification systems ..... throughout the past half century".... and maybe even the title should be changed. I noticed this by just seeing

Beyonce has sold around 145-150 million records as of 2015. This amount excludes "Lemonade" sales. https://louievreveals.com/2015/06/14/beyonce-worldwide-record-sales/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by MONP (talk • contribs) 17:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Below I will present why your edit on Genesis has been reverted, since you don't want to open up a discussion yourself. Genesis could not have sold 50 million records between 1997 as stated in this source and 2008 as stated in this source. This can be seen by simply looking at the certification awards Genesis have collected between 1997 and 2008. Here all they have from around the world after 1997.

• From US: 500,000 units (Gold album certification)
• From UK: 1.295 million units (2x Platinum album cert.), (Platinum album cert.), (Gold album cert.), (three Silver album certs.), (Platinum video cert.),
• From Germany: 1.6 million units (3x Gold album cert.), (Platinum album cert.), (three Gold album certs.)
• From
  France: 230,000 units
  (two Gold album certs.), (three Gold video certs.)
• From Canada: 5,000 units (Gold video cert.)
• From Switzerland: 25,000 units (Gold album cert.)
• From Poland: 50,000 units (Gold album cert.)
• From Denmark: 25,000 units (Gold album cert.)
• From New Zealand: 15,000 (Platinum album cert.)

As we can see there is some 3.790 million certified units since 1997. Therefore, it is impossible for Genesis to have sold 50 million records during that time frame. The 150 million units published by Telegraph is just an inflated figure for promotional purposes given to them by Genesis' record company.--Harout72 (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Your claim is "The 150 million units published by Telegraph is just an inflated figure for promotional purposes given to them by Genesis' record company", but you CANNOT prove that. Even the record associations can't prove they did sell, so how are you going to prove they didn't ?

Another thing: you also claim "Genesis could not have sold 50 million records between 1997 and 2008", but that is NOT stated neither in my comments or additions nor in the articles given as sources. You made this up, in other words. If a source from 1997 says Genesis sold 100 million and another from 2008 says it sold 150, you can't jump to one specific conclusion because that is your opinion; many reasons could explain the difference, and the band having sold 50 million in 19 years is just one of those (and unlikely, mind you). What would be a more likely answer to explain that difference ? Simple: one of the sources is wrong. It could well be that The Moscow Times underestimated Genesis' sales instead of The Telegraph overestimating them.

Allow me to give another example of different figures just to make sure you understand this: by the time of his death, Michael Jackson's claimed sales were 300 million. In 2013, it rose to 400 million. I'm sorry, but not even Jackson was capable of performing such miracle: you can't sell 100 million records in 4 years. So what's the best way to deal with conflicting sources like that ? Add both of them to the article, of course. Which is right and which is wrong ? We'll probably never know. What we have here are two reliable sources (The Telegraph being more reliable, I would argue) with different figures, so, in order to stop this tiring edit war, we could agree on using both of them, just like it was done to many artists (Jackson has even one more).

I'll wait for you considerations and I do expect to solve this nicely and peacefully. Clausgroi (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

1) First of all, I didn't have to open up this discussion thread, but you needed to do so because the lead clearly states: Note that this list uses claimed figures that are closest to artists' available certified units. Inflated claimed figures that meet the required certified units amount but are unrealistically high, are not used.

2) This source is from 1997 which states 100 million, and your Telegraph source is from 2008 which claims 150 million. That means according to the latter, Genesis have sold additional 50 million records after 1997. My argument is based on certified sales which in no way support additional sales of 50 million units after 1997. This is not my opinion, this is fact checking which is

allowed at wikipedia

. And based on what I presented above using certified sales, the additional 50 million units in sales is impossible.

3) We don't use multiple sources in other sections other than the first two sections. The main reason the first and also the second sections on the list use multiple claimed figures is because most of the artists listed have begun charting early.

Finally, since I'm seeing almost 4 million units of certified units after 1997, I'd agree to use a claimed figure for Genesis that states 110 million units, but I do not agree with the 150 million as it's clearly inflated. I'll wait for you to come forward with such a figure, if there isn't a such figure, we'll have to use the 100 million claim as it's more reasonable.--Harout72 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

1) It's a basic principle in logic and law that the burden of proof is upon the one who first makes the claim.

"this list uses claimed figures that are closest to artists' available certified units" is simply not true, for there are many artists there with claimed figures very far from their certified units, like ABBA, Sinatra, Turner, Summer, Beach Boys, Bowie, Who, White, Hallyday etc.

2) "That means according to the latter, Genesis have sold additional 50 million records after 1997" - NO, it does not mean that. Show me where it's written in the source that Genesis sold an "additional 50 million records after 1997" and I'll shut up. Otherwise, it's just a conclusion you're reaching from a flawed premise. Read again my Michael Jackson example: the second, more recent source, is NOT implying that Jackson sold 100 million records in 4 years because that is virtually impossible. It is merely stating Jackson sold 400 million whilst the other, older source, cites the 300 million figure. One source is not updating the figures mentioned by the other, rather they are citing independent, autonomous figures that might be right or wrong, we don't know. The Telegraph mentions specifically that Genesis "have sold more than 150 million records since the early Seventies", so it is considering almost the whole career of the group.

3) "We don't use multiple sources in other sections" - Where is this rule written and was it reached by consensus ?

"the first and also the second sections on the list use multiple claimed figures is because most of the artists listed have begun charting early" - The same happens to other sections, and even if it didn't, this should apply to all artists who began charting early (which is Genesis' case); that would be the fair and sensible thing to do. Look at Sinatra: the guy started in 1939 !

4) "the 150 million [figure is] clearly inflated". The reliable source states the group has sold that figure since the early 1970s and you can't prove otherwise. You can only prove they don't have certified sales for an adittional 50 million since 1997. Remember: think of the sources as independent; they are not worried about updating each other's sales figures. Clausgroi (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

1) The Telegraph source claimed 150 million units in 2008 and six years later in 2014, it claimed 130 million records in sales for Genesis. How is that for a reliable source? In fact, there are other sources too that claim 130 million for Genesis, including Willington Time. And this is exactly why we look at artists' certified sales to determine whether or not the given figures are accurate.

2) All artists in other sections are listed with their lowest available claimed figures. You are more than welcome to locate even lower figures for all including Sinatra, Turner, Summer, Beach Boys, Bowie, Who, White, Hallyday.

3) What is the difference between 150 million published in 2008, and 100 million published in 1997? If you still can't see it, this list may not be right for you to edit as everything we do here is based on algebra and common sense.--Harout72 (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Harout72: As I said, you have to consider the sources are distinct (Moscow Times and Telegraph) and independent/autonomous (they don't rely on each other or base their articles on each other's). That means the second, more recent figure, is NOT an update of the first, older one. I really thought I made that clear by giving the Michael Jackson example. Do you think Jackson's 2013 source makes the claim that he sold "an additional 100 million records" in 4 years, compared to the 2009 source ? Clausgroi (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Sales figures here at this list are only updated when there is a major progress in artists' certified sales. In other words, the certified sales should get closer to the currently listed claimed figures. That said, the current claimed figure for Genesis, the 100 million by Moscow Times is from 1997, correct? Genesis, on the other hand, have only collected some 3.790 million certified units after 1997, which is our current source's year is. That is not enough certified sales to suggest that they have sold 30-50 million additional units, so we can comfortably move forward and replace the 100 million with 130 million claim, let alone the 150 million. And this is what I've been trying to point out with the 50 million additional units in sales. However, when Genesis' post 1997 certified sales reach at least 15 million units, then yes, we can revisit this discussion and most likely agree to update their claimed figure from 100 million to 130 million. As it stands right now, we can replace the 100 million with 110 million, but I don't believe there is such a figure available. The updating process is done this way for all artists. You can visit our archived discussions and see it for yourself. There is nothing I or anybody else have against Genesis or any other artists. Multiple levels of claims are only used for the first two sections as the artists within those are mainly early beginners.--Harout72 (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you mean (though I don't agree with it, for no source says Genesis has sold an additional 50 million), but my question now is another one: why don't you apply the same "rule" to all artists ? Genesis began charting eve before Jackson, so both deserved the same treatment. Actually, all old artists deserve that. The possibility of adding more than one source for every artist charting before year X or Z should be discussed with other users. The way it is now, the list is unfair. Regarding Jackson, look at his sales from 2009 to 2013. Do they come anywhere near 100 million records ? If so, then the source is probably right and should be kept. If not, then the 400 million sales claim is clearly inflated (to use your words) and should be removed. Clausgroi (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Michael Jackson has had a lot of certified sales since June 2009 which is when this source is from. Just from the US market, he's added 24.5 million units. From the UK, 8.9 million certified units. That's just two markets and the total comes to 33.4 million. So yes, there is enough evidence to suggest that Jackson has added close to 100 million units in sales since June 2009.--Harout72 (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. This source claims more than 400 million in 29 August 2013. You can't consider today's date. In that period (2009-2013), Jackson sold less than 15,5 million in the USA, including video releases, according to RIAA. He sold even less in the UK and other areas, as you probably know (the US are his main market). Therefore, that source couldn't make that claim in 2013. The figure of 100 million additional sales in 4 years is clearly inflated. An even if he had sold the 33.4 figure till today, as you claim, we couldn't inflate that to 100 million. 50 million would already be inflated, since the US and the UK are the places where he sells most. Your claim "yes, there is enough evidence to suggest that Jackson has added close to 100 million units in sales since June 2009" needs verification. Clausgroi (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's 23.4 million certified units for US in your link here. Also, you are suggesting the removal of that source today in August 2016, therefore, I posted the certified units as they stand today. Bear in mind that the certified sales are almost always lower than the actual sales. Bottom line is that Jackson has collected enough certified sales to suggest that he's sold at least 50 million units after June 2009, when they were reporting 350 million. I'll add that Jackson's had 890,000 certified units in France since June 2009. Re-adding Genesis' 150 million without my consensus, will result in being reported at

WP:AN/I.--Harout72 (talk

) 03:34, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The figure I'm talking about refers to a 2013 source. You cannot use today's figure to prove a source that is 3 years old. If the source said in 2013 that he sold 400 million and that cannot be proved, then the figure was inflated. I'll be waiting for evidence of the 23.4 million certified units from 2009 to 2013. List the sales here with respective certifications, in details. Clausgroi (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I was stopping by to revisit the article, and I was a bit confused about Katy Perry having a smaller claimed figure than certified record sales, but nevermind that. I see this debacle here, and Clausgroi is simply making an argument here, I don't see the problem. Harout, it is you who's taking offense to what he's saying, not the other way around. You literally implied that Clausgroi is bad at math, so if anything you are the one being assertive with him. After being around longer on Wikipedia since our last run-in, I have learned how to solve consensus disputes. This is a deadlock between two editors, so for now the logical next step is a third opinion. I think that what we should do is analyze the sources at hand. What there is currently for Genesis is an article from The Moscow Times, which I don't really think is a reliable source for citing sales in the music industry. In this case, The Telegraph would probably be a better source to use than what's there now. However, if you find a better source with a more conservative estimate, perhaps you could use that instead. Based on the rules in place of claimed figures for bands before 1975 needing 20% in certified records to support it, it seems what Clausgroi proposes is permissible. You already know my viewpoint on this though, since we already went through the same motions with Queen already. You always claim to go with the conservative estimates, but I think that Clausgroi makes a good point, this is a double standard. How is it that Michael Jackson gets to skirt that rule, when there are claimed figures which are lower than 400 million, you still put the 400 million figure up there. So then why is it that a band like Genesis can't get the same treatment? --Bobtinin (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Bobtinin, if you're going to stop by and post a lengthy comment here, please be kind enough to read the entire discussion and not just a few paragraphs. As I have explained above, yes, The Telegraph is normally considered a reliable source (so is The Moscow Times), but as far as sales figures, we have to be careful when we use The Telegraph or any other reliable source. That said, had you read my explanations above, I would not have to re-write this again. The Telegraph has claimed for Genesis 150 million units in 2008 and six years later in 2014, it has claimed 130 million records in sales for Genesis. That immediately indicates that even reliable sources publish just about anything without doing research. And that's why we can't just use sales figures without bringing the certified sales in? As for Jackson's part, that should be a separate discussion. But that part again, you sound like you haven't read it either. Let me remind you both that Jackson's 400 million is supported by 45% certified sales, while Genesis currently has their 100 million supported by less than 40% certified sales. So yes, they are being treated equally. Bobtinin, dropping by and making such accusations against me without reading the whole discussion and making this discussion even unnecessarily longer is another way editors can disrupt resolution.--Harout72 (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

So let's end this discussion once and for all if you don't want it to be even unnecessarily longer. Prove Michael Jackson's 100 million additional sales from 2009 to 2013 (and/or from 2009 to 2015) in details, as I already asked you to. If you don't do that, then your claim that "there is enough evidence to suggest that Jackson has added close to 100 million units" will be invalid and the sources that inflate his sales will be removed. Clausgroi (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It's only 50 million from 350 million to 400 million. You can't even deduct 350 from 400? Jesus, where'd you go to school? If you don't know how to convert Gold and Platinum awards into figures to see that 23.4 million certified units just from RIAA between those time frames, that is certainly your problem. There is enough certified sales from all markets since June 2009 to suggest that he's sold at least 50 million records. Any removal or any other disruptions from you will result in AN/I. That is the end of this futile discussion.--Harout72 (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

300 million was already a bit inflated, since Jackson's certified sales are 181 million, so obviously you can't consider an even higher figure to prove your point. Remember what you said yourself: this list uses claimed figures that are closest to artists' available certified units. Inflated claimed figures that meet the required certified units amount but are unrealistically high, are not used. If this applies to Genesis, it applies to all other artists on the list.

To whom it may concern: just for clarification, in case any other user sees this last message, I asked Harout72 several times to prove his claims, but he seems to think that his word is evidence enough, that everyone should believe what he says. I questioned the figures he was coming up with and instead of proving to me he was right, presenting me the details of his calculations, he chose to attack me personally saying that I didn't know math and that I was being disruptive, even though all I did was discuss a relevant matter to the article. Not happy with that, he has also been threatening to report me and block me (one example), in a clear attempt to make me withdraw from the discussion. All in all, he has been acting like the article's owner, being its (virtually) only contributor currently, judging what can and what can't be added to the article, frequently reverting other editors' additions. Take that into account when reviewing this case in order to decide what administrative action should be taken. Clausgroi (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I did read what you said, but my main issue is that The Moscow Times shouldn't be considered a reliable source for the music industry. Their prominence/notability is much lower than that of a mainstream paper like The Telegraph. The fact that they have two different estimates on each paper isn't much of an issue, especially since they are going with a more conservative estimate the second time around. You are correct in saying that Michael Jackson's 400 million figure is supported by 45% of certified sales, but I don't see anywhere in the rules that says this has to be the case for the claimed figure to be legitimate. I understand that you're trying to follow the rules, but nowhere in the rules does it say that claimed figures which are sufficiently supported by certified sales, that happen to be disproportionate, are inflated and therefore can't be counted. Because of this, I think either that should be clarified in the rules, or you should simply disregard this notion of only using conservative estimates for claimed sales. As for the situation with Clausgroi, you're going too far by asking for administrative assistance, we should start a RfC to resolve this instead. --Bobtinin (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Bobtinin, you're saying you've read what I've said, but you're doing it again. The rules do clarify that inflated figures standing far from available certified sales are not used. This is almost at the end of the list's lead. It reads: Note that this list uses claimed figures that are closest to artists' available certified units. Inflated claimed figures that meet the required certified units amount but are unrealistically high, are not used. The Moscow Times is a news service just like any other. In our case, is the sales figures within the sources that matter, therefore, we analyze those claimed figures using certified sales before implementing them on the list. And this is

allowed and even recommended by wikipedia rules. And since Genesis have not had a progress with their certified sales since 1997, the 130 million is inflated. This I have explained already.--Harout72 (talk

) 08:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

The same article suggests that an outlet like The Moscow Times would be

"less reliable", since it's not well established (look at its readership). On the topic of inflation, there doesn't seem to be a clear definition on what consists of an inflated number. This is why I'm saying there needs to be a clarification in the rules, otherwise you'll get people like Clausgroi questioning the status quo. --Bobtinin (talk)

08:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It also does say

though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors. This certainly applies to all the inflated figures that I'm seeing. As for clarification of the rules, I agree that a few more statements could be added, but I don't believe even that will prevent the fans of artists from jumping in and making a mess such as this. I'll try to make it clearer anyways.--Harout72 (talk

) 09:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand there was already a discussion on sales vs. streaming, and I was wondering what you guys thought about a new article for just counting streams. If you're going to remove streaming from certification awards on this article, then we should probably document the streaming data on a different article. If we don't like that idea, then it's probably best that we start counting streaming data on this article again. --Bobtinin (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we did have a pretty long discussion on that topic, but we didn't agree to create a separate page for streams. For this list, however, the certifications are still going to be updated the same way as before with streaming included. But when it's that time to update the claimed sales of the newer artists, we're going to look at the US actual sales figures for those singles that have been over certified due to steaming. The US market is mainly the one that quickly pushes the newer artists' certified sales ahead due to streams.here is that discussion--Harout72 (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

As of November 2012, Perry has sold over 100 million records globally.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaneFilaner (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure that is a reliable source. The closest thing I was able to find was a Forbes article stating "near" 100 million. My source probably doesn't cut it since we must be willing to assume that one year later she hit 100 million. --Bobtinin (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

That's source is reliable but we're not using that kind of source in the list. It is use in Perry's Wikibio, is only a matter of time that a news organization will claim a same counting for Perry.Politsi (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I already read superficial the previous discussion and at this moment I support that those figure are a little unrealistic (even is he has had certificacions up or close to 40 million certified units since 2009), but just to make sure: the 400 million figures should not be listed anymore?.

Yes! Absolutely. We should not use that 400m-figure many years ago and it's good someone remind us to make this list more reliable, if Jackson wanted his 400m-records claim then he should support by at least 220m-certification sales. Politsi (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep it off the list for now. I only objected the removal of it because the person who removed it, didn't approach the situation from the right angle. He/she was arguing whether or not Jackson has sold enough number of records since June 2009 to support such a jump between 300/350 million and 400 million. The answer to that is yes, he has sold at least 50 million records posthumously. But overall that figure is a bit over blown. For that reason I didn't pursue restoration of the figure.--Harout72 (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay Thanks

talk

) 02:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Harout72, I always on your side. I want to join your long discussion with that user about Genesis and Jackson but I don't want to interrupt. And I believe you can handle it with a great explanation. I do agree that Jackson sold many records after his death but his overall records which is still only around 181 million is not powerful enough to hold the 400m-claim. Let's wait until his certification pass the 200-220m. Then we could consider to bring his 400m-claim back to the list. Politsi (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks guys.--Harout72 (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

GreenDay recently hit 85 million worldwide sales, their not even on the list for 75! Could someone please update this? Here's a link to where I got my info: https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Day

Lhill01 (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Green day need 49.8 million certified units to be listed with 75 million as their claimed figures need to be supported by 66.4% certified sales. Their current certified sales stand at 47.1 million.--Harout72 (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Harout72:—just wondering whether you had a file on Nicki Minaj's certified sales? Just did a talk page search and there have been very few inquiries about her potential eligibility for this list. Using her discography page, I have *rough* figures with her at 39.5m certified RIAA sales as a lead artist and 20.5m certified RIAA sales as a featured artist (where she features as the sole feature artist). This would be 60m certified sales in the US alone. Admittedly, her sales outside the US are a lot smaller, but she does have several singles certified highly in Australia and the UK. —JennKR | ☎ 01:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It might be worth double-checking my rough figure for her sales as a featured artist on other artists' singles/promotional songs. Minaj has featured on a lot of songs with often multiple artists, but I do think my figure is accurate to the guidelines of the page (only including those which where she is the sole feature). —JennKR | ☎ 01:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@JennKR. I've personally think that Minaj perhaps possible to be included on the list as the world's best selling artists. It took a lot of energy to calculate and find all of her official certification sales worldwide, so I suggest we should find a source from a news organization which claim Minaj has sold in range 75m - 85m. The very most difficult to do is to find the reliable source with a match claim sales calculate. It's useless if artists has 100m certification sales but there's no news organization interest to talk about it. Harout, do you have any calculation sales for Minaj?. I just ask and you are not under obligation to answer. Thanks Politsi (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I still haven't gone over her certified sales. I normally do that when there is a claimed figure suitable for the list. Let me know if there is a claimed figure published for her already.--Harout72 (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Harout, I'm using mobile phone at this moment and I can not show up the source right now. But please believe me, The CaribPress said that Minaj has sold 60m-singles as featured artists, 20m-singles and 5 million albums as lead artists, and that's 85 million claim in total. Harout, what do you think?. I need your help to calculate the total of her certification sales and if her total fit enough to support the 85m-claim. I will go to my computer to show up the reliable source from CaribPress. Again, if you have interest to do it. Thank you Politsi (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I will go to my computer as soon as possible, and show up the source I've mentioned it. Thanks Politsi (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Take your time as I'm not going to be able to retrieve her certifications probably until Saturday. But she needs her claimed figures supported by 76.6% certified sales. So she'd need at least 65 million certified units for 85 million claim.--Harout72 (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Harout, this source (http://www.caribpress.com/2013/06/07/nicki-minaj-signs-up-spokesperson-and-investor-for-moscato-wine/) is from CaribPress, and is a monthly newspaper published in California, a tabloid but not focus on gossip and female stuff. It's a reliable source. I need your help if she can get the 85m-claim. Thanks Politsi (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, let me have a few days to go over her available certified sales, I'll keep you posted here.--Harout72 (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

So I went over the markets where Minaj has gained popularity, including US, UK, Australia, I also see small number of certified sales from Canada and Germany. Overall I'm seeing 63.8 million certified units from those markets. Some of the certifications should be left out as there are multple featured artists on them. Also, the US has three singles which have been over certified due to streaming.

• 1) "Supper Bass" certified 8x Platinum, but sold 5 million only.
• 2) "Starships" certified 6x Platinum, but sold 4.5 million only.
• 3) "Bang Bang" certified 5x Platinum, but sold 3.2 million only.

Those three over certified singles bring the total down by 6.3 million, making it 57.5 million. So we'll have to re-visit this discussion some months later. In the meantime, I'll keep updating her certified sales on my file and also go over all of the smaller markets where she's had certifications.--Harout72 (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Harout, with gap only less than 10 million and she still dancing around. I think Minaj possible to join the club, need your help to keep looking her certification. I also will remind you if she release any big hit recently.Politsi (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Harout72: You gave a special source (btw why not in the article?) with that. Comparing it to the RIAA source (which is used as source for the special file) I now found a possilbe mistake that explains why I reduced Perry's US certified units: Prism is certified by RIAA with only 2 million units while your file says 3 million. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeap, you're right. I corrected it, thanks for bringing this to my attention, not sure how that went unnoticed for months.--Harout72 (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Is the list regularly updated? Because in that case the old retrieve dates from the sources are a bit irritating. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is updated almost everyday, whenever there is a new certification issued. If you notice again something that might be incorrect, please notify me on the talk page here.--Harout72 (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

So you guys thinks that 210M figures of Elvis  Presley powerful enough to hold 600M claim?  Like you said above, the claimed figures of artist  need to be supported by 66.4% certified sales. Do u think these 600 Million figures are correct ?? The 66 percentage of 600m is 396 Million.the beatles only have 270 cerified sales and elvis has only 210M . why You treating different artist with diffrent way?? This is a clear case of double standard

Where did you read that 66% for Elvis or The Beatles? A good starting point to understand how this list is operated is to read the lead of the list. The required certified sales amount changes based on the first year artists chart. For the detailed requirements refer to the second yellow box on this talk page from the top.--Harout72 (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

to Akhiljaxxn, please do not change any claim sales in this list or in those artists's wikibio without discussion on the talk page. All claim sales calculation are based on the reliable source which stand next to the claim sales, not in your own calculation.Politsi (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

talk

) 04:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand (more or less) how the list is operated. But I have to say that 181M figure not being enough to support 400M claim while 210M figure supports 600M claim can be seen as double standards. 270M certified sales of The Beatles also supports 600M claim. It's just like someone want to give The Beatles and Elvis the same claims. Although they certified sales are much different, they "have to" have claimed the very same total figures. It is a little suspicious. I want to say I really respect your hard job you gave to make this article, but all of this questions (181M can't support 400M while either 210M and 270M can support 600M and both Elvis and Beatles "must have" the same figure) don't seem very convincing. Greetings. 89.69.78.126 (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You have to consider the fact that when Elvis Presley started charting in 1954, even the US didn't have a Gold/Platinum certification program. US instituted its G/P program in 1958. Until 1973, the UK and France didn't have certification systems. Two years later, in 1975, Germany and Canada joined that club. So, both Presley and The Beatles (who began charting in early 1960s), sold lot of their records without being certified. That's where the difference stands between those two and Jackson who started charting in early 1970s.--Harout72 (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I know you are doing everything to keep this article on high level and, frankly, I think that sometimes you really have to work hard to handle all of the mess still done by many users. Yes, I understand all of that and generally speaking, this seems right. But between 350M (for Jackson) and 600M is really, really huge gap. Also between 210M (Presley's certified) and 270M (Beatles' certified). I think really more credible was that version when it was claimed 300-400M for MJ, 500-600M for Elvis and 600M for Beatles. In fact, that version also had its disadvantages, but in my opinnion was much better (from logical point of view) and it was held here for many years. Now, somebody just confused it. I mean from the better one we just changed it to the worse version. I just say what I think; I'm a huge fan of Beatles, Elvis and MJ, so there is no unobjective intention from me. 89.69.78.126 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

lady gaga doesn't have 114 millions with solds.. She MADE more than 100m with 1$ singles in amazon...... she doesnt have 1/3 of 114m records .... you can search 1 for all your life... thats a huge lie in wikipedia.... http://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=awards_by_artist#search_section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Gaga_discography — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:7F30:3801:10B7:5A12:331F:C120 (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6524172/ask-billboard-lady-gagas-top-selling-songs-albums — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:7F30:3801:10B7:5A12:331F:C120 (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

http://www.statisticbrain.com/top-selling-music-artists-of-all-time/ -> 80m — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:7F30:3801:10B7:5A12:331F:C120 (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You didn't upgrade worldwide sales of Britney Spears. She already sold 207 million copies worldwide. http://www.breatheheavy.com/exhale/index.php?/topic/646735-britney-spears-complete-and-total-worldwide-record-sales. This is a proof of my words. breatheheavy is a biggest site about Spears, so we can trust him. --Jessarae (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC) -http://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=top_tallies&ttt=TAA#search_section http://www.statisticbrain.com/top-selling-music-artists-of-all-time/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:7F30:3801:10B7:5A12:331F:C120 (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is reliable enough to prove that Katy Perry has sold more than 100 million records worldwide. You can also check the other source claiming that she has sold 100 million downloads on her discography. Here is the source: http://www.business2community.com/social-buzz/katy-perry-90-million-followers-becomes-number-one-twitter-01587282 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShaneFilaner (talk • contribs) 07:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• 4 certs in Finland (A COLLECTION 25,000; GUILTY 50,000; MEMORIES 50,000; ESSENTIAL 15,000)
• 2 certs in Austria (you have to put the wrong name to find: BARBARA STREISAND YENTL 25,000 and MEMORIES 50,000)
• 4 certs in Hong Kong MEMORIES 10,000; GUILTY 20,000;GHV2 -20,000; A STAR IS BORN -10,000
• 2 certs in Poland (LOVE IS THE ANSWER - 10,000; PARTNERS 20,000)
• 3 certs in Hungary (LOVE IS THE ANSWER - 3,000; BARBRA THE ULTIMATE - 3,000; PARTNERS - 3,000)

--

The total certified units for each market should be at least 100,000 units to be added to the list. This is stated at the bottom of each section.--Harout72 (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so only Finland has this total... thank you.--