Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 46

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

• A the total number of claimed sales.
• B the total number of certified sales.
• C both the number of claimed sales and certified sales (without the requirement for inclusion based on figures being supported by a percentage of certified units used in the current methodology).
• D number of "available sales" (i.e. any sales number given or claimed in reliable sources).
• E the methodology currently used.

Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Editors are asked to keep their responses to this RfC as brief as possible to encourage wide participation in this RfC. Please restrict extended comments or responses to the Discussion section

Survey

• C. We should use and present the information we have available, to better help the reader understand what claims are being made on what basis. And we should be including acts that are obviously missing, or the list is grossly misleading. We have a huge section called "Definitions" the take-away message from which is "Cliff Richard, Diana Ross, Scorpions, Bing Crosby, Deep Purple, Iron Maiden, Tom Jones, The Jackson 5, Dionne Warwick, the Spice Girls, Dolly Parton, Ozzy Osbourne, Frank Sinatra, Andrea Bocelli, Gloria Estefan and others have not been included on this list." I.e., the list is basically fragmentary, i.e. bullshitty.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC); rev'd. 06:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• C But ensure that they are backed with quality sources. Excelse (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• C. Agreeing with Excelse, the claimed amount of sales should be backed up by quality, reliable, third-party sources. — Tom^(T2ME) 11:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• None of the above/procedural close - this RFC is just a survey for survey's sake. None of the options are tied to any analysis of sources, or are even defined properly. For example, what are "certified sales"? Certified by whom? Certified when? Certified where? These details are the problems with this list, and this RfC glosses over them. With all due respect, the problems on this page aren't going to be solved by voting on a quick 4-option poll. This should be closed and sent back for a proper
  WP:RFCBEFORE. Levivich
  15:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• B This is an encyclopedia. We include information from reliable, verifiable sources. For that, the only reliable, verifiable source for the sales, is the certifying organization for each reported country. Anything else fails
  WP:OR at worst, as it appears to be in the current state of the page. We can explain the lack of certain artists with regard to the historical context of when charting began, or other issues. But the only way to have a list of the best selling music artists, and have it be legitimate, is to include the verified sales from the reporting sources. FrederalBacon (talk
  ) 16:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• C. Because it eliminates the current unsourced methodology conditioned by percentages and keeps the certified sales figures (something that is totally objective, ergo encyclopedic, and that provides valuable information). I have been thinking about it carefully, and although I had considered a methodology of option A based on D, I think that a new column containing the information described in option D, although it would certainly be valuable given the information it provides, perhaps its addition could be decided in the future; since as of today it is possible that its cells would be empty for a significant number of the music artists included in this List. I think option C can make the move away from the current methodology and subsequent transition clear and uncomplicated. In addition, there is always the possibility of adding some footnotes next to the claimed sales figures of some specific artists if necessary, like Frank Sinatra, for example. This will be a new era for this list, which will improve and be well prepared for the possible changes that may take place in the years ahead (such as adding a new column, for example, as option D implies) and that would be congruent with the change that is being decided here now. As I have said before, it is not accurate for a list titled "List of best-selling music artists" to include Barry Manilow or Luke Bryan and not Frank Sinatra. Changing the methodology that currently governs the List will undoubtedly allow us to solve many issues that have been perpetuated until now. Salvabl (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Per Levivich: close and seek an alternative. This is much too broad to be good as a focused RfC trying to address specific issues. The consensus could end up all over the place; people are mostly !voting C but E, the status quo, is a wholly separate option altogether, which to me says this needs further defining and refining. Too many options sets you up for
  WP:NOCONSENSUS; the fact that at this very early stage one is emerging that is in conflict with the status quo suggests a better RfC might be to narrow it down and exclude any other options as potential distractions. Which is more or less to say this particular RfC should never have been opened and structured as is to begin with — the better option would have been to just open up the floor to status quo, yes or no. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)}
  04:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• C Option addresses the issues better than all others. I support C per what has been already noted by others. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• C option C is the best option that is in line with all of Wikipedia rules and policies. My rationale was given above but will pate it here as well. This is because as of today only 24 countries have a certification system. Thre was only one in the 1950s and started to increase gradually since the 1970s. However, many artists have lost millions of unit certifications because of this since the early 90’s. Furthermore, certifications are not automatic and record labels need to apply for it and also pay a certification fee in the process which create process delays or scenarios where the album is never updated like D'eux by Celine Dion, which was certified diamond in the France, which is equal to 1M units since 1994. As per latest report, the album has sold 4.5M units. However, due to the current method, we are only permitted to use the 1m units, instead of 4.5m units, essentially robbing Dion of 3.5 million sales. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Per Levivich: close Reading the conversations below and the same users saying the same things as always and with Harout72 gone I think it's time to close this article. The reason for this RfC in this article always seemed to me to invalidate the methodology in a desperate attempt to inflate sales of some artists, not to make it as accurate as possible. Furthermore, observing the comments below and the vote comments, I realize that it is better to close it than to put sales here without any criteria, just because they appear on websites, journals and magazines that do not count sales in the world, do not audit sales to make them believable (such as do the RIAA, IFPI, BPI and others) and, as already noted, copy the information from Wikipedia itself,contributing to what is called circular information.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• C - As explained by Moh8213 below, combines utility of A and B, and better than the arbitrary complexity of current system. (Summoned by bot) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• C I don't see any other option other than C that would cover the entirety of sales and certifications. It needs to be backed up by reliable sources as mentioned above. Closing this rfc is counter productive to resolving the issues that brought this rfc to the table to begin with. I think that option is as worse as D and E. I also believe that C would address the original research issues that have been mentioned in this discussion.MraClean (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• C is the best option. I think this list should no longer be without legendary artists like Bing Crosby. AteneaZ3 (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Here's my overall opinion on the options, as there's some pros and cons to the options listed above:

• A: seems like a good option, considering that we don't have to be concerned about who's gonna update the certifications daily, but unfortunately we ain't gonna have a discrepancy between the certified sales and claimed sales, and in this way it's possible to experience a lot of inflated sales for artists in this list.
• B: you'd think that this option is good because those sales comes from trustworthy organizations who certifies records, while that's maybe true, it's certainly not the case, those certified sales would definitely not represent the total sales of the artist, so far we only have 24 countries that have a certification system (actually there's a total of 57 countries that have a certification system, but the 24 we have here are the ones who would often reach the top 20 of the global music markets), also the former do make up the majority of the global music sales, but still we won't have sales from the rest of the world.
• C: this option seems like the best of both worlds, as we gonna have a discrepancy between the verifiable certified sales and claimed sales, and it's the one I'm more leaning towards, though it does has its own flaw, which is about updating the certifications, even if there's an editor who's gonna update the certifications daily, they certainly won't do it "forever".
• D: this is perhaps the worst option out of all, just simply by using any sales number given or claimed by reliable sources, that means we gonna a fully bloated list full of incredibly inflated and unrealistic sales figures like this or this.
• E: I guess I don't have to explain about this option...

With that being said I'm leaning towards C atm but I'm not so sure so I can't decide rn. Moh8213 (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This should be the first RfC of many regarding improving the current state of the page. I hope this results in positive change, whatever it may be. I strongly support the idea that verifiable sources should be used at any and every possibility on this project, and this article that is full of contention regarding claims and numbers should absolutely limit itself to only verifiable sources. To do anything else just creates further controversy. If we can point to the exact numbers listed by the certifying agency, there can be no argument about those numbers. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I've stated this before at List of best-selling girl groups, which suffers from even worse problems and arguments than this article, but we need to bear in mind that very few countries had certification bodies before the 1990s, and I think the USA was the only one that had official certifications before 1973. So the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby, Motown artists, and many other artists whose sales were mostly before the 1970s will have a low or non-existent level of certifications in many countries, so for those people voting for C, for these artists the further back in time you go, the more it effectively becomes A anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Also, relying on certifications from the RIAA is problematic. While the rest of the US music industry adopted Soundscan for sales totals in 1991, the RIAA continued to use their own data. Revealing quote from the former head of the RIAA: “We think the certification process represents an accurate sales picture and we’re comfortable with the numbers we release,” says Rosen. “Gold and platinum is a marketing tool. We see it as a promotional opportunity to get an artists’ achievements more known to the public in a way that they can better understand.” Another worthwhile read: "RIAA rules create misleading album sales; Why record sales numbers don't add up" . JSFarman (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I think you should have waited a little longer before doing this RfC, while the situation is still being resolved in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Harout72 is the only one who updated the certificates weekly/daily, if he gets banned from the page or just doesn't want to update anymore the only valid options will be A and D. He hasn't been here for about four days.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think there is much support for a TBAN or ABAN for Harout. Sure, there are issues with the article, but the idea is to work with them, to see if they are willing to make changes. At least that's what I would support. There's issues with OR and SYNTH, but Harout defending their methodology is to be expected, given how long they have been working on the page. It's only if they fly in the face of consensus, should consensus favor a change, where it would be a problem, IMO. FrederalBacon (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't love the idea of A, but if it looked something like this, it would be more honest than trying to imply that certified sales necessarily track neatly onto actual sales. This option is upfront about the inherent difficulties in tracking sales data, and may be the most neutral way to talk about the issue. There are simply no reliable, independent sources for worldwide music sales, especially for older artists. I'm almost tempted to endorse having A and B as separate pages entirely, but that probably comes with its own issues too. Pacack (talk) 06:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Pacack is right here, you cannot use certified sales as a good indication of true sales for older artists. We have a source from less than 12 months ago that states ABBA's sales are 150 million, but a quick Google search will show plenty of sources that state 300 or even 400 million. And all this on certified sales of under 69 million. Motown artists are even more difficult to estimate sales for, because label boss Berry Gordy was notorious for hiding sales figures from his own artists, and didn't register the label with RIAA until 1977, so many Motown records were never certified, despite several of them estimated to be multi-platinum sales figures. Editors should be aware that before the 1990s, all claimed sales figures came straight from the record companies' shipments records, so even if they were reported in a reliable source like Billboard or The New York Times or whatever, they still aren't independent figures, they are claims directly from the record companies.
  • I would also be wary of simply quoting the highest claimed sales figure... I think a range of figures from reliable sources would be more honest. Claimed sales for the Supremes range from 20 million to 100 million, although because of the previously stated problems with Motown sales, certified sales are likely to be under 10 million... the true sales figure probably lies in the middle of that 20–100 million range. And don't forget that the current automatic certification of streaming sales is in no way comparable to the long-winded process of auditing for physical sales back in the day... certifications are hugely biased towards modern-day artists. Richard3120 (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

    I agree. Certified sales figures grow faster for newer artists, but digital download is certainly not the same as physical album purchase. And regarding the use of ranges for claimed sales figures, I also believe it is necessary, since worldwide total sales is an unknown territory, and, although it may seem the opposite, it is the right way to be more accurate, with a larger margin of error. Because stating very specific claimed sales figures (conditioned by a sum total of several figures coming from certification systems of different countries in the world, whose establishment dates are decades apart) is to fall into speculation, which is what has been happening so far with the current methodology. Salvabl (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

    I mostly agree with your point here, but per

    WP:CALC, doing basic math to add up every region's certified sales data is permissible. Pacack (talk

    ) 03:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

    It is bias that is not our fault. I'm not sure why there is this intense push on this article to correct for bias and provide a "fair reporting". The only fair reporting is certified sales. The issues with the RIAA are not our fault, we can explain the issues with the biases, but to set about to create a system to avoid the "official" sales records because we don't like them is not an option. We have one place for official numbers in the US, a collective dislike for that organization

    doesn't mean we get to ignore it. FrederalBacon (talk

    ) 00:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

    I don't disagree with your premise that we should not be correcting biases, and we should report information from reliable secondary sources whenever these sources are available. However, I disagree with your claim that certified sales are "the only fair reporting."

    To clarify, I think the concerns being brought up by myself, Richard3120, and Salbabl are that music certification agencies such as the RIAA do not claim to be sources about worldwide music sales. (Of course, per

    WP:SYNTH

    . I don't contest that point.) They are also unable to verify claims about sales data from before they were established, such as in the case of Crosby.

    Secondary sources from sources such as

    WP:SECONDARY sources for the bulk. For example, The Guinness World Records claims that Elvis Presley is the best selling solo artist of all time. They also claim that The Beatles

    are the best selling group of all time, but admit that this is based on an estimate from EMI, the label of the artist.

    This tension reveals the fundamental problem we're running into. As you yourself note, per

    WP:RGW

    , Wikipedia policy is to rely on information from reliable secondary sources without attempting to correct for any biases the original sources might have. (In this case, the bias is that they are taking the primary source they're pulling from at face value, when this may not be accurate.)

    From typing all of this out, I think I've finally decided that the way I would like to see this page go moving forward is to essentially do C, but use secondary sources for "claimed" sales data and change the category to "reported" sales instead. (This is per

    WP:PRIMARY policy to "not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.") Pacack (talk

    ) 03:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

    I second what Pacack says - certified sales are absolutely 100% NOT the fairest means of reporting, because as I have stated, they didn't exist before the mid-1970s for most countries. If certifed sales really were a true representation of actual sales, then Drake has sold almost as many records as Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley combined, Lil Wayne has outsold Queen, Led Zeppelin and U2 worldwide, and the Andrews Sisters - whose sales are reported around the 90 million mark - would not be anywhere on this list because their certified sales are precisely zero. Same goes for Sinatra and Crosby, whose certified sales are negligible... all three of these artists sold most of their records in the era when certifications didn't exist anywhere, not even in the USA. The title of this article would need to be changed to "List of most-certified artists". Richard3120 (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

    I couldn't agree more with both of you. I think the most valuable information certified sales can provide is what percentage of the total certified sales each country represents, as that can help to see how big an artist's global reach is. But beyond that, it's unknown territory. I agree with Pacack regarding the use of

    WP:NEWSORG. In the case of the highest claimed sales figures (1 billion for The Beatles, Jackson and Presley), we can find them in news sources (see here for The Beatles, here for Jackson, and here for Presley). And if we talk about Jackson and Presley (something that usually generates conflict between users, though it should not be so), both have been described as "the best-selling music artist of all time", respectively. In Jackson's case by the RIAA, and in Presley's case by Guinness World Records. Neither of those two organizations has authority to certify total worldwide sales (no one really does, because as I said before, it's unknown territory) nor are they news sources. But I think that in this case, they could be added as secondary references next to the news sources references, since currently in Elvis Presley's article we can read that "Presley remains the best-selling solo music artist according to Guinness World Records" and in Michael Jackson's article we can read that "He is regarded by the RIAA as the highest-selling individual music artist of all time worldwide." In this way, the transition would be easier, with no major changes in the articles of artists like Jackson and Presley, while keeping a good uniformity without causing additional conflicts. Regarding The Beatles' claimed sales, the 1 billion figure also appears in news sources, even when it was a figure initially claimed by EMI; it is the same for the other 1 billion figures, claimed by the artists' Estates. Salvabl (talk

    ) 16:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with most of the points you guys have brought, tbh I really don't support the idea of adding a billion sales claim for all those 3 artists, while this may settle the conflicts between those 3 artists' record sales, it is a fact that one of 'em sold more than the other, and its a fact we need to accept (especially for the fans of those artists). Record sales were decent in the 50s, 60s and 70s, but they definitely weren't strong enough to push all those 3 artists to a billion records, also we have to consider that the population was a lot smaller back then, plus other than the current certified sales we have on those 3 artists, we aren't supposed to believe that they sold as much (if not even more) in the developing world than in the developed world, it just doesn't make sense whatsoever. In fact, we are already considering the Beatles' 600 million records claim as inflated, so what would justify us to use the billion sales claim for all those 3 artists? Moh8213 (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I share your concerns. Being honest, I will always think that no one has sold 1 billion records. However, it is a claimed sales figure that exists and is there, covered by news sources, and other types of sources. I don't like inflated figures, but I also don't like the lack of equal treatment of artists, and above all I really dislike the conflict between users, so all this is difficult to handle. If you ask me what I think about it (from a personal point of view, which is just that and should not have any value here) I will tell you that I think The Beatles have sold more than Michael Jackson and Elvis Presley without any doubt. One only has to look at the certified sales in Japan (the second biggest market): when the Japanese certification system was established (in 1989) The Beatles had disbanded almost two decades earlier, Presley had died 12 years earlier and Jackson was at a mid-point in his music career (he had already released the albums "Off the Wall", "Thriller" and "Bad" earlier); and the certified sales figures are 4.95M for The Beatles, 0.3M for Presley, and 4.65M for Jackson. Clearly The Beatles are on another level. However, about who is the best-selling individual music artist, I will tell you that it is an unknown for me, even though I have spent countless hours researching as much as I can about it because I would really want to know; but as I said before it is unknown territory, impossible to determine. What is clear to me is that whether it is Jackson or Presley, the difference between them is really small at present. Both artists have uncertified sales, but... who has more? We can't know either.

In Presley's case, his beginning in terms of music sales was in 1956. The U.S. certification system was established in 1958, so the time span in which sales were not properly certified is not too large. Subsequent certification systems were established in the 70s (Finland in 1971, UK and France in 1973, Germany and Canada in 1975; also Australia already had certifications), but I think that in Presley's case the only truly remarkable market for him (and where there may be millions of uncertified records before 1973) is the UK, because of cultural reasons and language. Of course there are also sales in countries like Germany and France, but these are smaller markets (more at that time than now) where the missing sales are not so remarkable. For example, Presley's certified sales in Germany are 1.2M as of today; even doubling the figure to try to compensate for pre-1975 sales would not be comparable to The Beatles' 8M or Michael Jackson's 11.275M. In terms of sales outside the US Elvis Presley is not on the same level as The Beatles, Jackson or Madonna.

If we talk about Jackson's sales that went uncertified, we have the case of Japan, where there was no certification system even when the singer had already given concerts there as part of his Bad World Tour (which started in Japan), or the case of Mexico, where the album Thriller has 2.6M certified sales by a certification system established in 1999, the question is: how many uncertified sales are in that country since the album was released until 1999? Nobody knows. And those figures in Mexico are only for one Jackson's album. However, Mexico is not a relevant market for Presley's sales, since as of today his certified sales there are only 105K. As I said before, both Jackson and Presley have missing sales, but in Presley's case we can see what is the US-rest of the world sales ratio considering data generated when certification systems already existed in the main markets of the world, and we will see that the percentage that US sales represent is really high for Presley. It is a cultural factor, since even if we look at the box office figures of the Elvis biopic (53.7% Domestic / 46.3% International) or the Michael Jackson's This Is It film (27.6% Domestic / 72.4% International), we see that the Elvis biopic has a much higher percentage in the USA than in the rest of the world, while in the case of Jackson, his documentary/film has a higher percentage in the rest of the world. For all these reasons it is very difficult to resolve the doubt of who is the best-selling individual music artist with any accuracy. We may have personal opinions, but they are just that, and we can always be wrong since they would be based on speculation due to the lack of objective data.

Because of that, and because I know that this usually causes conflicts between users, I believe that the most convenient is to equal the claimed sales figures for these two music artists. For that reason, and thinking about other possible cases I would like to propose the addition of a Rank column similar to the one we can find in the List of largest extant lizards that would allow to give the most equal treatment possible to these two artists by placing them both in the same position #2 (with one Rank column's cell spanning the two rows of both artists). For example, recently the opening lines in the Presley's article were changed so that it read the same as the Michael Jackson article. I think that's fine, and the Rank column could help to maintain that equal treatment uniformity for these two artists.

Regarding the inflated figures, if it were up to me numbers would be much lower than 1 billion, of course, but I think that currently the best we can do, in order to allow the inclusion of artists like Frank Sinatra in this List, is to add ranges. Maybe in the future, we can add more sources to support certain uncertified sales figures in each country/market and provide additional information (that's why I considered the most appropriate methodology would be an option A based on D), but for the moment, to correct the main issues (such as the absence of artists like Sinatra) option C is a good first step to simplify everything and make a smooth transition. Salvabl (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Salvabl: just to add to that... in the case of why ABBA's certifications are so much lower than their claimed sales, I can say from personal experience that in the 1970s and 80s when I was visiting South America as a child, the band were one of the few non-Latin acts at the time with a big presence - their albums were widely available in record stores, and were present in many households, no doubt helped by Latin-influenced songs like "Fernando" and "Chiquitita". It would not surprise me at all if they had sold 100 million records across all Latin America, but with no charts, no certification bodies and no reliable sources counting the sales, there is no way of confirming the true sales figures in the region, but they certainly will not be negligible. Richard3120 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

ABBA's case is singular. It also makes me think of the case of Roberto Carlos, a singer active since 1951, who has sold millions of records in his home country, Brazil, but because the Brazilian certification system was established in 1990, most of his sales were not certified, and he has not been able to be included in this List so far due to the current methodology. The ABBA phenomenon in Spanish-speaking countries could also be seen in Spain, and certainly, songs with Spanish titles such as "Chiquitita" played an important role. Anyway, I have usually read claimed sales figures higher than the 150M that we can find right now on the List; we will have to check if the sources claiming them are reliable, but I think it will not be difficult to find references for claimed sales figures up to 300M (I have done a quick search and have found reliable sources claiming sales figures of 200M, see here). Salvabl (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel like this is all just something beyond our help. To create this page is to work with one arm tied behind your back, due to the lack of verifiable information. It's why it's contentious, it's why it's hotly debated, and it's why it's hard to come to consensus. Without verifiable information, anyone can make a claim that an artist has sold a certain amount of records. It's why I don't like C, because C becomes A for the vast majority of countries, as has been pointed out above. It's also why I'm so for B. I understand the problems, I understand the concerns with using just certified numbers. But because there are going to have problems with this list no matter which methodology, it only makes sense to go certified sales, as if we simply did that for every artist, and explained the lack of some artists on the article, there can't be any argument. The number is the number is the number. It stops Editor A from finding an article that says the Beatles sold way more than they did and using it, just to have Editor B go "That's not reliable" and remove it. Every single methodology except B will result in more conflict. FrederalBacon (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It will be very misleading to only use certified sales, because only a handful of countries have a certification system, and it doesn't cover the total ww sales of the artist. If we solely gonna use the B option, then all newer artists will go to the top of the list, with Drake being at the very top, this gon' make readers to believe that Drake is the "best-selling artist of all time" which is far from being the case, that's simply due to certifications (thanks to streaming) are pretty much worthless nowadays, it'd make artists (especially the newer ones) easily obtain gold and multi-platinum record certifications, and that's where claimed sales come into place, by also using the claimed sales (which covers the certified sales + sales from other territories), and by adding the certified sales itself, we at least gonna have a balance between the certified sales and the claimed sales of the artist. Moh8213 (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I honestly believe B is by far and away the worst option of the five. The number may well be the number, but what that number most definitely is not is the sales, because apart from the last ten years or so, certifications have NEVER been the number of sales. Using solely certifications introduces at least three systematic biases into the list: a bias towards artists in the streaming era versus artists in the era of physical sales; a bias towards artists releasing music in the era when certifications existed versus when they didn't; and a Western-centric bias towards artists whose sales are mainly in developed countries which have had certification bodies for longer. Using B will almost certainly cause more arguments and edit warring on this page, not less – readers will rightly be baffled as to why the Beatles are now only the fourth-best selling artist despite being described as the biggest sellers in numerous sources, and Elvis Presley doesn't even make the top ten. The only way I could possibly support option B is to rename the article List of most certified music artists, because any other title would be totally misleading.

I do agree with your first point, though – there will never be a happy consensus about his article, and any option will always cause many arguments, which is why my option for this and List of best-selling girl groups has always been F – get rid of the articles altogether. I know that won't be a popular option, though... Richard3120 (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit: Using certifications creates an additional problem – the numbers on this page will be completely different from the sales numbers on the individual articles of every artist on this list. The Beatles have 289 million certified units, their article says 600 million. Drake has 404 million certified units, his article says 170 million. You wouldn't just have to watch this page, you'd have to change the figures on the articles of every major artist, and argue with editors on all those articles about why the figures have been changed. Richard3120 (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I think that you and Moh8213 have explained it perfectly. I understand FrederalBacon's concerns, but if we choose option B it would be necessary for this List to cease to be named "List of best-selling music artists", since if a methodology based on option B were implemented artists such as Frank Sinatra could not be included. And artists like Justin Bieber would be above Madonna, Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson. This would be correct only if this list were transformed into a different one named "List of most certified music artists", as Richard3120 has pointed out.

On the other hand, I believe that a methodology based on option C may provide greater uniformity with the several articles involved, as we can currently find figures in the artists/bands' articles that differ from those in this List due to the percentages requirements. Apart from that, I also find relevant what Richard3120 has stated about possible Western-centric bias towards artists. It is true that option B would cause it, but I believe this problem already exists now in the List, as there are percentage-based requirements of certified sales figures from a limited number of countries/markets. Option C will allow us to see Frank Sinatra, The Andrews Sisters, as well as Mr. Children (and perhaps Teresa Teng) and Roberto Carlos included in this list. I think this will be more accurate for a list named "List of best-selling music artists". Salvabl (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment: If we decide to keep "Certified units" in this article, then the number of artists should be trimmed down. Please note that currently there are 118 artists on this page, and believe me, nobody will give a sh1t to update and maintain all of their certifications from 23 different organizations (per my count on this page). That's a lot lot work to do, and people are just gonna care for their favorites. Per User:Moh8213, even if there's one dedicated editor updating the figures daily, they still wouldn't be here forever. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I agree. I think the list could contain artists who have sold over 200 million, either by "claim sales" or by certified sales, or even two lists including each case. I don't see the need for so many artists, too much work. There are about 20 artists who have reached that amount with "claim sales", and 12 with "certified sales", and I think that's enough.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment: It's been a week since @Harout72 decided to stop updating or getting involve in the list. Usually, he's very active to ensure all certified sales of each artists being updated daily, while me in the other hand make sure all "deserved artist" included on the list with the right estimation sales release by a highly regarded news organization. Harout72 and me, we never own this list. We're just editor who care with the content inside. Both of us handle the list since 2012 until last week (10 years) and because of that, you guys able to enjoy seeing your favorites artist in the list from David Bowie, Alicia Keys, Luke Bryan, Usher, Shakira, Alabama, R. Kelly, Robbie Williams, Bob Seger, Enya, Bob Marley, The Police, Aretha Franklin, Christina Aguilera, Justin Timberlake, Johnny Cash, Simon & Garfunkel, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Linkin Park, Coldplay, Lil Wayne, Maroon 5, Kanye West, Chris Brown, Flo Rida, Drake, Justin Bieber, Adele, Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars, Nicki Minaj, Ed Sheeran, Imagine Dragons, Ariana Grande, The Weeknd to Post Malone. Of course this list isn't perfect but we're able to make this list survive and quite reliable with support from many of the world's greatest news organization for 10 years. Now, with @Harout72 decided to stop. I'm not sure this list will continue to look reliable and fun enough without Harout72 and me. Whatever your choice with A or B or C or D. Politsi (talk) 08:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree with @

WP:OWNERSHIP like Harout72, as your attitude in discussions has always been correct. As I have already stated in other messages, the existence of a Wikipedia article cannot depend on a single editor's activity, because then WP:OWN is evident. Likewise, it is not correct if, in an article like this, 2 users share ownership over two parts of the list (such as certified sales, and claimed sales figures). I don't think that was the case, and we only have to go to your contributions history to see it. It was not you who used ANI reports as a tool to try to prevent changes (changes not related to certified sales figures). The best way would be that any user can contribute to any part of the List. I think this is how it should be for a Wikipedia article, and that way this List will definitely be active. Salvabl (talk

) 13:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's harsh/unfair to trim the current 118 artists on this list, there are pretty significant artists in the 75 million club like Nirvana, Enya, Bob Marley, Tupac, just to name a few. Even if we removed some of the artists on this list, it'll still be difficult to update/maintain the list daily, it's also an incredibly time-consuming and rather "confusing" process, and that's why I'm hesitant on choosing the C option. The reason why it was smooth for Harout to update this list for all this time is because he has detailed files which includes the certified sales for all artists on this list, hence it was easy and less confusing for him to update this list, but now since Harout isn't active, idk how it's gonna turn out, I don't mind if he gonna come back and continue editing this article, but if gonna do so, then this time he has to be much more open minded towards other people's POV's. There's one solution in my mind that might solve the C option issue, and that's to bring a bot that'd automatically update the artists' certified sales every time a new certification pop up in the database, ik this may sound ridiculous, but tbh it's interesting to consider, I'm sure this solution also has it's own flaws, but in this way we won't be concerned about updating the certified sales. Moh8213 (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there are very significant artists with 75 million claimed sales figures. It is possible, though, that after the implementation of a new methodology based on option C, some of those artists will have claimed sales figures of 100 million, for example. Anyway, I see fine to keep 75 million as the beginning of the List. Regarding the update of the certified sales figures, I know that Harout used files created by him personally (I have some of those files), but I don't think it is necessary at all (it may, even, take more time), since if something like that, outside of Wikipedia, were necessary, then it would not be appropriate to continue with it. However, the List's edit history is really useful for this purpose because, as long as we keep adding appropriate and informative edit summaries, it will be easy to track and review any changes since the last update. We (you, for example) are already handling it well now. We will be able to update more certified sales figures in the first days of September. At that time, the List will be up to date. After that, it will be easy to continue updating certified sales figures in the following weeks. Salvabl (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

@Salvabl are you sure you guys able to updating the certified sales of each artists consistently every day?. If we look from edit history, @Harout72 always consistently updated the list several times a day. I feel the list begin losing their soul following Harout's quit. This list is so famous and even mentioned in some article of Billboard magazine https://www.billboard.com/music/chart-beat/harry-styles-harrys-house-five-burning-questions-1235080035/ Like it or not. The current methodology, it's the best idea on how this list operate. Politsi (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you @Politsi:, and if Harout72 doesn't come back, I think this article should be closed or deleted. From what I see in the comments, things can get worse and those absurd claims sales (millions or even billions) can return to the article again, even after so much effort to make things as accurate as possible.--Markus WikiEditor (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The comments of both @Politsi and @Markus further prove just how deep-rooted the issues are on this page due to the user-generated policies and single-user maintenance. There are multiple users who update the certifications of albums and singles on a daily basis. If I was the user who maintained this list over the past decade, I would have not kept the certification list in a doc file. I would have kept it on Wikipedia in a subpage like List of best-selling music artists/The Beatles (or whatever artist listed here) to have a better idea of each artist' available certifications for all the readers. Even if harout72 is active we would have to ask him personally for each artist’s file to know whether the certification is included in this list or not… I’m doing this before in the past, but I have discovered mistakes on his list. These kinds of

WP:DEADLINE in Wikipedia.— TheWikiholic (talk

) 15:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

No one care about the rule of Ownership or Deadline or whatever you are saying. Everyone looking for a completed and a fresh list with a new detail of certified Sales and claim sales from a very reliable source. That's how this list should be. Looking on the edit history of the list. I never see your name @TheWikiholic consistently do some effort to maintain the reliability of the list. Politsi (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Claiming that no one cares about

WP:PAYWALL the reference is valid and can be added. These are Wikipedia's rules and neither you nor I can change them or break them. It should also be noted that the certified sales figures are not going to disappear from the List. Moreover, there is no situation of outdatedness (several certified sales figures have been updated today) since the user Harout72 ceased his activity. On the contrary, we only have to go to the List's edit history to see that more than one user is currently contributing to keep the certified sales figures updated. Salvabl (talk

) 23:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment: Whatever "methodology"/"option" followed, seems there will always exits inclusion/removal of some artists. With option C, it can be perfectly added virtually every artist and their claimed sales with the minimum amount established, either 75, 100 or above. Thus, many of the artists that y'll haven't probably heard, from non-English speaking areas, will have an 'automatic inclusion'; supported by English sources, or newspaper of record/news organization of their areas. If the list still existing, I would suggest one more time, having an artist's page with their numbers (Talk:List of best-selling music artists/X example) to track their numbers. -Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It is true that the number of artists included in the list will increase. That is why I had suggested the option of a minimum claimed sales figure of 100M instead of 75M. In any case, artists such as Frank Sinatra or The Andrews Sisters will not require frequent updating of their certified sales, so the dedication required to keep the List's figures updated will remain essentially unaffected.

Regarding the inclusion of non-Western artists, I think it is something positive since we are on the Wikipedia in English language (a global language) and this List should provide worldwide coverage (in part it already does). Apart from that, I don't think there are many non-Western artists to be added. For example, if we focus on the Chinese music sphere, a territory with millions of consumers, with thousands of relevant artists from different decades lacking certification systems, perhaps the only artist that could be included in the list is Teresa Teng. And, after doing a quick search, I have not yet found a reliable source claiming a high enough claimed sales figure to be included in this list. And Teresa Teng is probably the most significant individual music artist in modern Chinese music. Apart from Teng, I don't see it possible that any other Chinese artist or band could be included.

Another example are the groups that we can find in the "List of best-selling girl groups"; of all of them only 3 could be included: The Andrews Sisters, The Supremes and Spice Girls, no others. The case of groups like The Andrews Sisters is similar to that of Frank Sinatra. At the time when they sold the most records, there were no certification systems. This should not be a reason to exclude them, taking into account that this has been the reason for the establishment of percentage-based fabricated requirements that until now have benefited the artists whose careers began when certification systems only existed in the U.S. and not in other countries/markets. However, it has not affected other artists in the same way. Madonna is a good example, because although there were a greater number of markets with certification systems when her career began, her global reach is greater than other earlier artists, resulting in a situation of unequal treatment toward artists. That's why I believe that the percentage-based requirements, apart from being fabricated, are a nonsense. Salvabl (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we have to be concerned about non-Western artists, as it'll be very unlikely that they've sold at least more than 75 million records or more, let's take China and India for example, while they do have an enormous population, in fact China/India has more inhabitants than North America, Central America and South America COMBINED, yet for the longest time, both of these countries barely made the top 20 of the global music markets. In other words, China and India has pretty weak music markets, much weaker than other markets like the United States, Japan, Europe etc... and with the lack of a certification system in both countries, I don't see any reason to include artists from those regions. Moh8213 (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't be quite so confident as you about that... having spent a large part of my life in South America, I know that an artist who is popular in one country in that region is likely to be popular across the whole of Latin America, due to the shared language from Mexico to Argentina, and if their career is long I could easily see them selling tens of millions of records in total. For example, Vikki Carr is American but of Latin descent and made many records in Spanish... I know she was very popular in South America during the 1960s and 70s. It's no guarantee that she or any other Latin music artist would have reached 75 million sales, of course – I'm just saying I wouldn't dismiss the idea so easily. Richard3120 (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

What Moh8213 has explained is true; countries like China or India are not large music markets despite having a big population. However, I think that even if the markets are small, there can always be exceptions of some specific artists. For example, the case of Roberto Carlos comes to mind. I was in Brazil 11 years ago and I remember a woman who told me that when she was a child there were Roberto Carlos' records in every Brazilian home. This is just a personal anecdote, nothing more. But it is true that Roberto Carlos has been an active singer since 1951, nicknamed "O Rei" (in English: The King) in his home country, and that according to reliable sources he sold millions of records before Brazil established its certification system in 1990. Anyway, what I meant in my previous message is that there are not many cases like this one, where there are reliable sources available that claim a high enough claimed sales figure to be included in this List.

How much a market generates out of the total global music sales could only be determinative if the sales of a specific artist were distributed in exactly the same proportion in all those markets. The sales percentage generated by a specific country/market is a consequence of the sales of numerous artists with different degrees of global reach.

For example, a US-oriented band such as Lynyrd Skynyrd do not have the global reach of Madonna. However, their 30.2 million records sold in America do count when determining how much American market represents in comparison to the rest of the world for the music industry global sales. The deeper the analysis we carry out, the more we realize the incoherence of the current methodology.

@Apoxyomenus, sorry I almost forgot to give you my opinion about your proposal of having an artist's page with their numbers (Talk:List of best-selling music artists/X example). I think it is a good idea, and I will support its creation. Perhaps the best time for this would be after the implementation of the new methodology. I believe it is something that can be really useful and helpful for the future of the List. Salvabl (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Depends in the artist too, for example Western acts such as Kylie Minogue, Kate Bush, or Robbie Williams enjoyed success in Australia/United Kingdom, and some other countries but historically with poor stats in United States, an English-language speaking country and the biggest market. Nevertheless, Minogue alone, for example have claimed sales above 80 million, and with option C and keeping artists with 75M figures, she could be automatic added. Keep in mind, some regional acts, like a Turkish artist could sell in the past millions of their several albums in their country alone, and same goes to other artists in peculiar markets where national records outsold international releases most of the times, and some of them have minor/mid crossovers. Japan for example, while I don't know Japanese artists there exists the possibility of older ones having a lot of million records sold considering RIAJ began in the late 1980s and they have been historically a national-consumption music market; there exists even a phrase for Western acts called Big in Japan and global artists like Adele is not even one. Then, exists multilanguage acts, a bit old as Dalida with French-language markets being various countries as well (Dalida's main markets), or more recent examples such as Andrea Bocelli, Laura Pausini or Enrique Iglesias to mention few, as they have various certified units in several markets across several continents, perhaps even more than Motown artists in comparison. Those are some examples that came to my mind, but seems that the list goes and goes. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It is true that there are cases like that, artists who are very successful in a specific region and not in others. Regarding Japan, except for some cases of limited success of some old rock bands, it was a country not very interested in "modern music" until the 70s; in the first half of the 20th century, while in the USA people listened to Sinatra, in Japan they listened to folk music and only the young audience listened "modern" music of a genre called Kayōkyoku. That genre/style had a rather slow development in a country with a music market that should have grown faster. Perhaps the only remarkable name from that earlier period, with some international fame, is Kyu Sakamoto (whose claimed sales figures are 13M, so he could not be added to the list). As I said in my previous messages, I think there are very few non-western artists that can be added. I have been researching about some Japanese artists considered "legends" in their country and have not found claimed sales figures above 75M for them (not even searching in Japanese) supported by any kind of source.

It is different with “classic” western music artists and multilanguage acts. Dalida is a really good example, there is also the case of Charles Aznavour. Anyway, I think we would not be wrong if we affirm that Aznavour has sold more records than Kenny G (who is already added in this list since years ago). Salvabl (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)