Talk:List of best-selling music artists/Archive 6

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.

This is a great and informative list, but why do you have that shitty format with brackets of sales and then alphabetical order within, you don't even put eeach artist's etimates sales - you'd be much better off simply having an list of artist sales sorted by the most descending.

The Double Oscar Award Winning Indian artist, A.R.Rahman has sold more records than even Elvis Presley ,Michael Jackson and the Beatles according to reputed News Channels and music records, making him one of the top bestselling artistes of all time.Please make the necessary changes in view of the changing climate surrounding him since his Oscar wins.

A.R Rahman did sell alot of copies, but more then beatles elvis, michael jackson, i dont think so, he is still probably more then 700-800 million records short.

Typical of westerners to behave like the "frog in a pond". A.R Rahman has made more than 200 albums. India's population is 1100 millions and that of Indian sub-continent(non partitioned India - Pakistan, Bangladesh..) is close to 2000 million. Indian movies and music are popular in over half of the world population, in almost all the countries in Asia and Africa. While western music is popular in just less than 1/3 of the world. Indian movies are song and dance based and Indians produced more than 877 movies in 2003 alone. Indians are crazy about movies and music. So obviously it would be easy for an Indian to sell more albums than any other person. Even if Rahman managed to sell just 1 million per album his sales will be 200 million. My estimate is Rahman has easily sold more than 10 million per album, so easily over 1 billion.

But I still suggest that A.R Rahman should not be included in the list for the following reason

A.R Rahman is not the greatest ever Indian composer. There have been many before him. for e.g. Illayaraja from A.R Rahman's hometown Chennai has more than 850 movie albums or around 5000 songs to his credit and most of them hits in India. Just south India's population is around 220 million + many more south Indian origin people in other countries like Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa etc. If you even take a very very very below average sale of just 236,000 per album among just south Indians, it gives you a sale of more than 200 million. I believe that Illayaraja has easily sold more than 1 billion, i.e he has easily sold more than an average of 1.18 millions per album. Another composer from Chennai M.S Vishwanathan has made more than 1000 movie albums. You have many more from Bollywood and other languages.

Since it is not possible for the western people to estimate the number of albums for Indian artists and the fact that the list will be filled with Indian names if they start including Indian composers I suggest that you maintain the list for western artists alone and acknowledge that it is a list for western composers and not imply or make statements that the artists listed are the top or best in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.128.167.68 (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Metallica is over 100mil albums sold, Iron Maiden not, it's about 75 mil for Maiden. A gay fanboy of Maiden replaced Metallica in there. Metallica is far better than Maiden, pussies. And sold more albums. This is an important source of info, don't misgive it like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.250.212.130 (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you honestly this retarded? Metallica is not nearly as good as Iron Maiden, and they have only had so many sales because they sold out. —Preceding

Why do people always complain that Metallica sells albums??? Why is it forbidden for them to be succesful? Is it because of the Napster case (obviously yes)?? Why blame Lars for preventing people from stealing there work? Get over it, Metallica just kicks ass. I think so and apparently 100 million other people on this planet do to. By the way, If someone who has the authority would edit Metallica to the 100 mil+ section, as the sources already quoted next to this entry actually state sales exeed this number... That would be nice thank you. 83.161.11.89 (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is well known they have sold in excess of 65 million singles and albums. Look at their stats on the RIAA site. They were the biggest selling artists of 1967, and had the biggest album of the same year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremy Shirland (talk • contribs) 05:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldnt even be mentioned

lol I think you should take that back.--RafiCHAMP¹ 07:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have recently tossed out good amount of artists who were supported by illogical record sales figures published by unreliable sources. In the meantime, I tried my best to locate and replace those unreliable ones with sufficient sources, unfortunately, I was able to do that for a few only as most reliable papers/magazines hardly dare to include sales-figures within their music related materials unless they thoroughly study world-wide sales figures for a particular artist they write about. I even had to ask the people at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for their opinion as I was not sure about the reliability of some sources [1]. Another thing we need to pay attention at is adding sources like this one for Oasis for example, which may be viewed as reliable by some users. Despite the fact that the writing is not coming from a significant publisher, it does not even have a single name of an author. I had this looked at by the people at WP:RSN.

Therefore, I suggest that we discuss the reliability of the sources here before adding them to the page, if users aren't sure how sufficient the sources are that they locate.--Harout72 (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to request that anyone adding, or deleting, an artist or a source for an artist in this list indicate in the edit summary what artist their edit refers to. This will make it easier to review what changes are being made. Thanks! --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey everybody! Frank Sinatra's sales are over 500 million, please put him again at over 500 million sales section. Here is the source of 500 million sales:-

https://www.amazines.com/article_detail.cfm/495017?articleid=495017 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.40.168 (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

2pac sold over 100 million albums, Eminem sold around 75 million albums, BTNH sold 50 million records worldwide, yet I don't see these artists on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkmaster3000 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you got citations for those? I haven't to find a 2pac reference that I'm comfortable with. Found this one http://www.contactmusic.com/new/artist.nsf/artistnames/eminem for 70m+ Eminem sales, but I have no idea how reliable contactmusic.com is. Danno uk (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Duran Duran have sold over 75 million records. They should go up and into the next category.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZU-KFmsrNo  ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.95.172 (talk) 14:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

In the country field, sometimes there are two countries named, why? What does the country field mean? Is it meant to be country of origin or country of most sales? It is completely unclear what the country field is supposed to represent. It would be good if when people make these pages they enter something a little more descriptive than 'country'. This is an encyclopedia not a school project. Can people please start using their brains. Whoever locked the page, fix this problem or unlock it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.237.135 (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's 'nationality', and I agree that it's unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.79.8 (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

In Paula Abdul's Wikipedia page, it is mentioned and sourced that she has sold over 53 million records. This would put her on this page. Why isn't she on here? Savvy10 (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Why aren't the Beach Boys listed? According to their Wikipedia page, the group has had thirty-six U.S. Top 40 hits (the most of any U.S. rock band) and fifty-six Hot 100 hits, including four number one singles. Rolling Stone magazine listed The Beach Boys as one of the 100 Greatest Artists of All Time. According to Billboard, in terms of singles and album sales, The Beach Boys are the No. 1 selling American band of all time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricarvic (talk • contribs) 23:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

iron maiden have sold more records than guns and roses!! so how can they be in lower position than guns and roses??Krem12 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Each section is in alphabetical order. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. — Realist² 22:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've made a change to Gloria Estefan from the section of "50-74 millions" to the "75 - 100 millions", because she has sold an estimate of 90 millions of albums, and is listed here on this page:[2]. Also on her DVD in the 90 Millas album ,it says that she has sold over 90 millions of albums around the world. (Charlie White (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

sold over 75 million cleary stated by Guinness world records, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.187.29 (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed... I actually came here to see where he was ranked... Tupac's article clearly states he has sold 75m+, as verified by Guinness. What needs to be done to add him? If it's just a matted of a reference, I will edited this article to add him. Please correct me, if I'm misunderstanding something. agentlame (talk)

In order to add Tupac Shakur to the list one must come forward with a third-party reliable source equivalent to these examples. We have had editors in the past who've made an attempt in adding Shakur to the list which quickly was removed due to the unreliability of the sources.--Harout72 (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Is last.fm reliable enough? Also last.fm says he sold over 75 millions. Some time ago on MTV i heard that he now has sold over 80 millions hoewever i cant find anything reliable now. 77.38.164.83 (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the Last FM can't be regarded as reliable at all. Not long ago, someone had added Shakur to the list with an unreliable source, I replaced it with a reliable one-an article I came across, published by The Independent which claims his record-sales stand at over 70 million in total. Tupac is currently listed within the 50-74 section.--Harout72 (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL even biggie smalls and eminem sold more then him, no way he should be on this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.30.226 (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Backstreet Boys, according to reliable sources, have sold some 100 million records world-wide, that is singles and albums combined. Here are sources which support those figures: [3], [4], [5]. We recently had the band moved from 100-199 section into 200-499 by

I'd like to post our votes below either to Keep or Don't keep this source. And let December 12th, 2008 be the final day for voting, which is exactly two weeks from now. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Don't keep. --Harout72 (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus does not involve voting, it's the strength of the argument, Prince George Citizen in a long standing published newspaper, more reliable than websites usually. — Realist² 02:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Even backstreet boy's updated official website does not support such a ludicrous claim. Even the most prominent newspapers make mistakes. And a local newspaper such as that I doubt would even care about an inflated sales figure (this happens EVERYWHERE now) which might be seen as a trivial issue considering there is no worldwide body tabulating sales quite like RIAA (there still are certifications though, which again prove the 200 million figure wrong). Most sources agree they sold 75 million worldwide by 2001. So what these fans are claiming is that they sold around 130 million since then. They're saying that BSB sold more albums (130 million vs 75 million) AFTER they already declined vs when they were big in the 1990's. That speaks for itself! Suchcloseure (talk • contribs) 08:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This matter is resolved in favour of keeping BSB within 100-199 section. See the comment/decision made by an Admin. at

WP:RSN [7].--Harout72 (talk

) 17:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The 100 million worldwide figure is album sales. Not singles. Backstreet Boys(intl) 8, Backstreets Back(intl) 14, Backstreet Boys(US) 14, Millenium 40(million), Black and blue 24, The hits: Chapter One 6, Never Gone 10, Unbreakable 1. Total is 107 million. They have 21 CD singles. Single sales are hard to find, especially worldwide. I've found 12 million sales, for only 10 singles, in a few countries (Australia, Japan, Canada). It's not hard to imagine that some of their singles (IWITW) could sell as good as their albums. And there are the live cd's, burger king cd's ect. Plus, somewhere on Canoe.ca(toronto sun, 24hrs, ect) they mention sales of 200 million. source 24.66.47.235 (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you are getting your figures, all of which; however, seem unstudied and awkwardly inflated. This is, in fact, what their figures should look like, below:

• Backstreet Boys (intl. Version) has sold only 3 million in the entire European continent.
• Backstreets Back (intl. Version) has sold 5 million in the entire European continent, 800,000 in Canada and 350,000 in Australia.
• Backstreet Boys (US Version) 14 million in US, 1 million in Canada and 70,000 in Australia.
• Millennium has sold only 2 million in the entire European continent, 13 million in US, 1 million in Canada and 140,000 in Australia.
• Black & Blue has missed to reach 1 million units in Europe, it has sold about 250,000 in UK , and 300,000 in Germany, 8.5 million in US and just 70,000 in Australia.
• The hits: Chapter One has sold only 1 million in entire Europe, 1 million in US and just 35,000 in Australia .
• Never Gone has not even sold 1 million in entire Europe, just 200,000 in UK, 100,000 in Germany, 1 million in US, 100,000 and only 35,000 in Australia .
• I see no Certifications anywhere for Unbreakable.

All in all, I am counting about 53-55 million in album sales for these major regions. You are saying there is 12 million of singles sales in Australia, Canada, and Japan. In fact, I am counting only 700,000 units for Australia and I see none of their singles having gotten a Gold Certification in Canada. I doubt, if they could have even sold some 3 million singles in Japan. Finally, this source is not something you should rely on; especially, as far as sales figures go. --Harout72 (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You could take a look at their Wiki pages and check the sources there. This list is WORLDWIDE record sales. Australia, UK and USA are not the only places on earth. I mean, The Dark Knight has only made 660 million in these major regions. Should I go change TDK's wikipedia page, because thats the logic you've shown. BSB are way more popular in South America and Asia, and sell out much larger venues. Also, singles are RARELY certified because it costs money. Their biggest hit, IWITW was never certified in the USA. But I'm damn sure it sold more than any other single. Some singles can't even be certified as singles because they contain more than the RIAAs standard 4 tracks. 24.66.47.235 (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Above I am providing their album sales for entire European continent (not just UK), North American continent and Australia. These regions should cover 75 to 80% of their sales. South America's music markets are quite tiny [8]; in other words, the combination of all markets taken in South America will barely come close to the size of only two large markets in Europe (German and UK). In fact, IFPI does not have listing on most of them due to their remote sizes[9]. In the same vein, Asian markets (size wise) are not looking too bright either. There is only Japan's market which is an important market to count in; however, I doubt BSB could have sold more than 5 million records there (albums, singles, videos combined). If singles are not certified as you mention above, that's because people often prefer to spend their money on albums. As for this source supporting their 200 million on the page of Backstreet Boys, it's been declined to use it by Admins[10]. See the discussion above.--Harout72 (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The article supporting The Corrs sales of over 50 million was in the Vail Daily, Vail, Colorado in a story about The Chieftains where they were mentioned. The Corrs wikipedia site says they have sales of over 9 million. I don't believe their chart positions and platinum awards support sales of over 50 million. Is there another source to support over 50 million in sales? RadiantKatie (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm unable to locate any reliable sources for The Corrs that talk about sales figures that high; however, from what I understand they've done quite well in the UK according to BPI with their Talk on Corners especially, they have other platinums in the UK on albums Forgiven Not Forgotten, Unplugged, In Blue. All in all, they are looking at over 5 million in the UK's market, and over 2 million in U.S. market, and about 1.5 million in the German. Let's say roughly 10 million (including those album/singles that haven't reached gold certification levels) out of just 3 larger markets, I still doubt that their total could come anywhere near 50 or 60 million as this source claims even if we included sales from other parts of the world. I will try to locate any reliable sources that I can but it looks like they're a good candidate for being tossed out of the list. --Harout72 (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we have a separate sub-section showing the Beatles and Elvis as having sold in excess of one billion records? It is a remarkable achievement that I think is worth recognizing and there is a substantial gap between 500m and 1bn units. Danno uk (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all I dont think that the beatles sold 1 billion records, because every where i look they say elvis sold 1 bill., then mj and beatles sld 750 mill each.--72.39.30.226 (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's well documented that The Beatles had sold over 1 billion albums by 1985 alone. Additionally, whenever I search for Elvis' sales, rarely do I see the figure of 1 billion.

Remember that the Beatles have sold almost 60 million albums since 1991 in the US alone. Elvis isn't even in the top 10 - he just isn't as successful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.5.211 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Beatles are good in USA but no where else, probably less then 30 million not including usa.

The guys in AC/DC have continually stated that they are NOT heavy metal. They are only a Hard Rock band. Angus Young once stated in the booklet for "The Razor's Edge," that it insults him to be called heavy metal. So... with that said, I do believe that the heavy metal genre co-title should be removed on behalf of the best interests of the actual band.

The Wikipedia page for the band Blondie lists them as having sold over 60 million records. Obviously either this page or that one is wrong, and one of them needs to be changed.

New Kids on the Block sold over 80 million copies and Luis Miguel sold over 100 million copies and he isn't in the list. Please make changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.95.162.242 (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Which "grunge" hating, glam idiot removed Nirvana and Pearl Jam? They have both sold over 50 million and 60 million respectively. They both were on this page recently, and the sources still are their on their bios. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.26.160 (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I re-added them. Seems a vandal removed them, and no one noticed/cared, so no one reverted it. Alice Mudgarden (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not add these artists back to the list without locating reliable sources please. I have invested a lot of time in cleaning up this article at times by even asking the opinion of the people at

WP:RS in regards to the reliability of the sources that some of the artists were supported by prior to removing them from the list. All sources must be published by third party very reliable sources, such examples could be found here. Regards. --Harout72 (talk

) 16:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The only reliable source so far I've come across that talks about the record-sales of Nirvana is this, the sales-figure of which does not exceed the 40 million boarder. As for Pearl Jam, I have yet to locate any reliable sources that actually dare to talk about their total record-sales.--Harout72 (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you just revert without checking that sources were provided? Because sources were provided and are indeed reliable. All of those sources have been accepted as reliable on the talk pages for their respective articles, and I don't think anyone could genuinely believe that BBC's music journalism is more reliable than the links provided - one of them is even from a Pearl Jam press release. I mean, is it really so hard to believe these bands have sold over 50 million records? No it isn't. And are these reliable sources? Yes, yes they are. I am reverting back. Alice Mudgarden (talk) 08:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

EDIT - Even at the top of this article it states "Sources are record labels, newspaper articles or manual addition of figures from various official sources. This means that these figures should be considered claims, not facts" - so it is likely that many of these here are wildly inaccurate, much more so than Pj and Nirvana. And in addition to this, there are many sources used in the reference section that are only as reliable, or even less reliable, than the sites I quoted from. Some examples are Motley Crue, George Strait, ABBA, The Carpenters, Ray Coniff, and two for RHCP [11] [12].

Allmusic, MSN, Hit Parade, the National "Basketball"Association? Please. None of these are anymore reliable than Yahoo Music, Creative Commons, and Chart attack. Some are far worse, in fact. Once again, I must stress my objection to the removal of these artists, as the sources provided are indeed reliable. Merry Christmas! Alice Mudgarden (talk) 08:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just found this - http://www.sonybmg.ch/artists2.php?iA=4&artist=359300 - which is about Pearl Jam. It's from their label Sony BMG, and it states 60 million. It's in German though. Alice Mudgarden (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are some more reliable sources as well.

• Nirvana over 50 million
• Nirvana over 50 million
• Pearl Jam over 60 million
• Pearl Jam over 60 million
• Pearl Jam over 60 million
• Nirvana over 50 million and Pearl Jam over 60 million

Apart from the above, this from Pearl Jam's label stating 60 million should be enough for them, and this from Yahoo Music stating Nirvana at 50 million should be enough for them. Although, any number of these reliable third-party sources could be used. Regards, Alice Mudgarden (talk) 09:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I never revert anything without thoroughly studying the edits. The sources that you have provided to support the stay of both

WP:RS and the use of such sources that you believe are reliable were declined for List of best-selling music artists because they quite often exaggerate the statements within their materials to attract readers, their fans for the most part. "Yahoo music" could not be regarded here as reliable; in fact, none of the sources (except one) that you are providing above can be regarded as reliable. We are to accept only materials published by (for example): CNN, Fox News, Times Online, BBC and all other major news service regardless of the language they're in. Major record company publishings (don't confuse this with label publishing) could somewhat be regarded as reliable, again regardless of the language the material is in. Having said that the source you are providing above by Switzerland's Sony/BMG could be used here, and I am going to support the Pearl Jam's stay with that; unfortunately, we cannot keep Nirvana with the currently provided source (Yahoo Music). If Nirvana has really sold as many as 50 million records then you should not have a problem locating such sales-figure published by a prominent news service.--Harout72 (talk

) 19:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

As for your suggestion whether some of the artists on the list are supported by less reliable sources than the ones you are utilizing, I'm having a hard time understanding why would anyone question the reliability of such prominent news services as the MSNBC or The Times Online supporting the record-sales of ABBA--Harout72 (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC).

I really don't see how Allmusic, MSN, Hit Parade, the National "Basketball"Association could possibly be considered more reliable than Yahoo Music or Chart Attack. MSNBC is not even close to being the same level of reliable news source as the Times online. It should be removed as a source if we're not going to allow something on the same level as it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.26.160 (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I do constantly clean up this page, I have already replaced the NBA based source which was supporting

Billboard magazine for example [13]. Therefore, it could be regarded as somewhat reliable here as well. In the same vein, MSNBC can be viewed as a reliable source because most of its content is fed by NBC. --Harout72 (talk

) 07:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well, there's also this here which states 50 million for Nirvana. The Courier-Mail is generally considered one of the better/more reliable Australian newspapers, although in recent years has been criticised for "tabloid-esque" writing style. Are they considered a reliable source in this case? I know that they are used in many articles on Wikipedia, but 99% of these articles are related to Australia, as the journos would have more knowledge in those cases. Alice Mudgarden (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It is actually not a bad one, since the article is fed by The Advertiser (Adelaide), I thought I'd search and locate articles about Nirvana within the original source and I came across this here which seems more reasonable since it has the name of the author as well. Anyways, I added Nirvana to the list within the 50-74 million bracket. Thanks for understanding.--Harout72 (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No problemo. Cheers! Alice Mudgarden (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly Britannica has the numbers for Alla Pugacheva and does not for Sofia Rotaru. Whereas, Alla Pugacheva was certainly popular, mainly in Russia and former Russian Republic of USSR, whereas Sofia Rotaru was and is the most popular artist in Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Eastern Europe, countries just for example as Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Czech Republic. Sofia Rotaru was the first Soviet singer to be invited to record at a Western studio like Ariola and won awards in many countries, with a number of albums sold and a number of albums generally, higher than Alla's. What is going on?--Nextvital007 (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I recall, Tom Jones was born post-

I agree. Annie Lennox is Scottish, but is - rightly - listed as coming from the United Kingdom. Jones should be the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.79.8 (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolut, its a country even if they have different soccerteams. Look at Forbes list over companies, They are toghether under United Kingdom, and so shall the music artists be.

I have seen a lot of sites that place 3 artists over the 750mill mark, should we add this new list, or do you think that there are no good sources backing that fact up? --RafiCHAMP¹ 07:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not the first time that editors suggest what you're suggesting above; therefore, I decided to add in two more brackets to the list. One that states those artists who fall into the "500 to 999 million" category (they are Bing Crosby and Michael Jackson) and another bracket which includes those who fall into the "1 Billion records and over" category (they are The Beatles and Elvis Presley). I located a few more reliable sources prior to expanding the table for those in the top two sections to see whether it was really worth placing them in separate tables.--Harout72 (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but can you do one more thing(anyone) , I highly doubt bing cosby should be placed in that category with mj, does anyone else think thats a correct statement?--RafiCHAMP¹ 22:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, even though; this source by

Billboard Magazine is the only reliable source so far I've come across that supports such a sales-figure for Bing Crosby, I still think we should keep him within the bracket of "500 to 999 million records" because I've noticed that Billboard rarely risks mentioning world-wide record-sales unless they carefully study them. I will, in the meantime, keep searching for some more third party reliable sources with similar figures for Crosby. --Harout72 (talk

) 00:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do.--RafiCHAMP¹ 00:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this really necessary for this list? Has no real affiliation with the subject at hand. I could understand if you were going to say - "the highest selling hip hop artist is...", but other than that it has no real reason for being there. Thoughts? k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 14:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

agreed, i just (few minutes ago) fixed a small mistake on the page, and started thinking that it's unnecessary, not to mention that there are a lot complications with the "/" sign.--Soul Eater (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Plus, none of them are referenced and the likes of Madonna and Bowie apparently represent a dozen different genres each. It's just not notable here, and really not verified because of the lack of sources (is there any point in adding another 100 or so references to this article just for genres? No). k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 15:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some of the genres for some artists may need to be either corrected or simply deleted; however, in general, it's a good idea to have it on the list since it serves a quick reference as to whether what type of music each artist covers. Perhaps, it would be correct to say that some of the genres are redundant, for example Madonna (since you bring it up above) does not need to have "Electonica", "Trance" and "Techno" as "Electonica" alone covers all three. As for sourcing the genres, that's not needed here as we are to concentrate mainly on sales-figures within this page.--Harout72 (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"that's not needed here as we are to concentrate mainly on sales-figures within this page" - is exactly why they're not required. Wikilinks should do it justice imo. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 01:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between not needing to have references for the genres and not needing to include genres in the list.--Harout72 (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm Italian and constantly follow news about the Italian music business, so I believe I can say I know Italian singers and their chart performances better than many people here. It's the second time that I've read or heard that Celentano sold 100 million records worldwide and frankly it surprises me, because no Italian artist (not even those who have enjoyed the longest-lasting and most successful careers) has ever had such an impact on the world market and because up to some months ago such a claim had never been made. The first time I'd heard it was in a TV news show when they reminded viewers that it was his birthday and it marked it 50th year in music business. Since there is no reliable source (and no, the German webpage that was mentioned is by no means more reliable than any other news webpage), I think it's more of a claim made by his label to boost his importance and overestimate his importance in music. I believe that until a reliable source is found, he should be taken out of the category. Dreamboy81 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid, I'm going to disagree with you as Süddeutsche Zeitung could be regarded as reliable. Celentano has been releasing albums since 1960, and so far he has released 56 albums, correct?. With the success he's experienced up to date, I believe it's fair to say that he may have sold some 2 million units of each material including the singles. IFPI alone has two of his albums Io non so parlar d'amore, Esco di rado e parlo ancora meno listed as over a million units seller within the 1996-2008 listing (does not include singles nor does it include sales of outside Europe) not to mention his single Don't Play That Song which has sold over 500,000 units in France alone.--Harout72 (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

How can she be put in the 50-74 million category when the Wikipedia page devoted to her states that she has sold more than 83 million records? Shouldn't she be put in the 75-99 category?

Consider that it's not only the monographic page on Wikipedia to state that. All media are reporting the same. Those that want to play it safe state that she's sold 83, while those that are more enthusiastic say she's sold 88. Since Wikipedia shouldn't report distorted figures (even though it constantly does here and there), we should keep to the 83 million.

The sources are many. Here are just some:

http://popdirt.com/britney-spears-vs-beyonce-vs-christina-aguilera/46750/

http://www.portfolio.com/culture-lifestyle/culture-inc/arts/2008/01/14/Britney-Spears-Career-Analysis

http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/56349507

http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/where-have-britneys-millions-gone/20080225073809990001

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1580191/20080124/spears_britney.jhtml

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2008/07/britney-spears.html

Notice that some of these articles were written some years ago, which means that figures are now higher. And I've just mentioned some web pages of various relevance, but you could find a thousand more in the Internet just by typing "britney 83 million" into any search engine. I've avoided mentioning her two official websites, which report the same figures, because I understand they might be seen as partisan. Dreamboy81 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved Spears into the bracket of 75-99; however, I decided to locate a more reliable source than any of the above references that you are providing. I came across an article published by

Times Online [14] which is a more prominent news service than "Hollywood Insider" and "MTV". Let's also keep in mind that we cannot support sales-figures here on this page using sites of this kind [15], [16] which quite often publish record-sales without thoroughly studying them.--Harout72 (talk

) 19:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. In fact, as I pointed out just after listing those sources, the ones that I mentioned were random. I just typed the phrase into a search engine and copied and pasted some addresses (after reading the content of those pages, of course), just to show that that figure was generally considered right in the media. But naturally there are more reliable sources than the ones I mentioned. And it's clear that some media just report data without a grain of salt, sometimes even messing up with cyphers. Dreamboy81 (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Her first album, 15million, second and thrid and fourth combined is 4.5 million, re-issues and greatest hits and etc, 3-4 million, which adds up to 23.5 million, probably 50million due to lack of recording, but no where near 100 million, plus her newest ablum didnt even pass 1.1 million in sales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.30.226 (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

why is she in the 50-74 bracket she has sold 71 million albums in united states ALONE.. it doesn't include singles sales. She has also some few worldwide sales so she shouldn't be there.. It's the most obvious thing in here, she has definitely sold more than 74 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xlaws001 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson received the award of "Artist of the millenium". The award is given to the best selling solo artist. How can you put Elvis Presley in front of Michael Jackson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrana (talk • contribs) 14:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's easy. You just have to remember that the list is made with figures in hand. Therefore, if an artist receives a prize from an organization whatsoever that considers him the artist of the millennium SUBJECTIVELY and WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY FIGURE, but figures prove them wrong, he's going to land onto the list in the appropriate place according to figures. Besides, as it's stated at the beginning pf the article, completely reliable sources about worldwide sales just don't exist, which means that everybody can pretty much say what they want and be considered reliable, if it's consistent with the success the artist is generally credited with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamboy81 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Every where I look it says that michael jackson sold 750million records but it says "over" 750million records, which means he should be in with elvis and beatles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.30.226 (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

True, everywhere i look they say that mj is biggest selling music artist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.30.226 (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

With some 135 million record sales according to Wikipedia's own "Shirley Bassey discography", this is a major omission from the list. Shirley Bassey is Britain's top selling female recording artist of all time according to the Guinness Book of World Records, and quite probably the top selling singer of her genre worldwide, and she certainly vaults well beyond the threshold on this list. Unfortunately Wikipedia's own discography page for Dame Shirley is missing a citation on this number and seems to have replicated itself a lot on other websites, but surely it is officially available somewhere, perhaps from Guinness World Records themselves. My own web search indicates that at least at some point, her official website had this number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decisivemoment (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I studied Bassey's Silver, Gold and Platinum records through BPI, and the total number of her sales per Britain's Certifications does not surpass 2,500,000 units. However, one should exaggerate this figure slightly in order to include those records that have not reached the Silver certification, I'd say her total sales should be around 3,000,000 in UK. I also tried to check and see if she's had any Gold/Platinum Certifications in other larger markets. She has no Certifications listed for the German market or the French market, surprisingly enough, she does not have anything listed for North American markets either: U.S. nor Canada. I tried to locate a reliable third party source that actually mentions anything about her sales-figures but that went in vain too. --Harout72 (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Black Sabbath has sold more than 100 milion copies worlwide. Look: http://www.mtv.com/bands/m/metal/greatest_metal_bands/071406/index2.jhtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by MainBegan (talk • contribs) 21:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see 100 million records being mentioned anywhere within the article that you've linked above. Judging by the Gold/Platinum Certification-Awards they've collected in U.S. market (which comes up to 15 million records), UK market (total of 1.1 million records), Canadian Market (total of 600,000 records), German market (no certifications), French market (no certifications) I'd say, their total may not even be 50 million as this reliable source claims, which Black Sabbath's sales-figure is supported by on the list currently--Harout72 (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC).

I found 4 more reliable sources:

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Sabbath-Souls-black-t-shirt/dp/B001OR23BC

http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=42351&highlight=&sid=223ac726a08a0268d8a3012f70ab9ae1

http://geekzkrieg.com/top-10-influential-metal-bands/

http://www.discogs.com/popular_artists

Shouldn't we change this? I didn't find another source about 50 million —Preceding unsigned comment added by MainBegan (talk • contribs) 21:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid none of the above can be regarded as reliable. Examples of reliable sources could be found here. --Harout72 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't

Currently, Black Sabbath's sales-figure is supported on the list with an article published by Fox News which happens to be more reliable than MTV. As for the MTV link above, which you posted here initially does not mention anything about the act's total record-sales. We can't accept anything by Amazon.com here to back up world-wide sales-figures; in fact, it should not be used to support statements of any kind anywhere within Wikipedia.--Harout72 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A

Ordinarily, major news services employ people who do all sorts of researches for their music-related materials. As for the statement in regards to the sales-figure within the provided source, it should not be viewed as only one reporter's point of view. I, too, studied Black Sabbath's sales through Gold/Platinum Certification-awards in five larger markets and the total number (which I slightly exaggerated in order to include those records which may not have reached Silver/Gold) does not suggest that they could have possibly sold more than 50 million. So far, all sources that I have come across which state anything around 100 million records for this act have been unreliable, and sources of this kind simply pull numbers out of anywhere to make their publishings blatant in hopes of drawing readers' attention.--Harout72 (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia gives him 75+ million records sold but hes not on the list. The guy did this during the "British Invasion" so I think he should make it onto the list.

24.93.204.164 (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Arty24.93.204.164 (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the statement regarding the 75 million records as unreferenced since it had none, I will remove the statement myself if it's not sourced with a reliable source in the near future. I also checked Vinton's Certifications in five larger markets (US, UK, Canada, Germany and France). All in all his record-sales doesn't exceed 2.5 million in the US market and he's sold some 150,000 in Canada. He does not have any Certification-Awards in UK market nor does he have anything in the German, French Markets.--Harout72 (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it is obvious that Cher has sold over 200 million records (includes the ones as Sonny & Cher); Look at her reliable sources of sales (solo and with Sonny), they surpassed 100 million records; Furthermore, a lot of her records, in US but above all internationally, are still not certified! I've searched on the net and a lot of reliable sources stated this fact...I don't know why you are keep deleted them! Cher has sold over 200 million records!! Good evening! --FraDany (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this matter. I will try and be as much help as I possibly can in helping you understand that Cher as a solo artist could not have sold as many as 200 million records in her career. First, let me say that I haven't come across any reliable sources which support such a sales-figure (200 million) for Cher. It's normally a good idea to look at artists' Gold/Platinum Certification-Awards in larger markets such as U.S., UK, German, French to have an approximate idea about where they might stand as far as worldwide sales go, and we could also look at the Canadian market (since it's a neighboring country wherein most of US acts do quite well) . Her total U.S sales= 17 million records, UK sales=6.2 million, German sales=4.5 million, French sales=1.7 million, Canadian sales=1.3 million. However, one should slightly exaggerate the total number of records that the Certifications alone represent in order to include those records that have not reached a Silver/Gold status. So Cher's 30.1 million records taken out of five larger markets should not exceed 35 million in an exaggerated form. And that figure should give one a clear idea how much further her worldwide sales might stretch, which all in all, cannot possibly exceed the 100 million records in sales worldwide. In fact, it may not even go as far as 70 million. Those inflated figures that you keep coming across are most probably injected into the media by her Label which is a tactics used for promotional purposes. On the other hand, most reliable sources such as CNN, BBC, FoX News do study sales-figures before they publish them. As for their sales as Sonny & Cher, first, it can't be included in her solo career. Second, looks like they've sold only just over 2 million records in US, there are no Certifications listed for any other larger markets.--Harout72 (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all in the US there are so many albums, singles and others records haven't certified yet; Which means that her figurative 17 million sales in that country are approximate; The sales are at least, 50 million records! Even if you count every album or single with a Gold (or Silver) status you'll reach that cifre! Beside the US market it's not crucial; Look at ABBA's sales in North America, nevertheless they have sold over 350 million records worldwide! However in the other big markets (such as UK, Canada, Germany or France) too...Furthermore the number of records still not certified in those countries is major; So the sales that you posted are approximate. One more thing, it's not so impossible that Cher has sold 200 million records worldwide; With Believe (album and single) she has sold over 30 million copies...try to think with the other 24 albums and circa 90 singles (without counting the ones as Sonny & Cher)! Good day. --FraDany (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 17 million is approximate as it does not include the records which haven't reached Gold status (I discuss this above which you seem to have failed to read); therefore, one needs to exaggerate this figure slightly to have also the uncertified ones. And even by doing that the 17 million is not going to become 50 million as you suggest above but rather it will stagger between 20 and 25 million. As for US market being a crucial one or not, one needs to look at the genre of that particular artist's music. In the case of Cher who has not produced catchy dance like tunes (at least not like ABBA), I'd say, yes US is her biggest target, second would be UK's market, the population of which has also been attracted to rock based genre almost always. Rock based genres reach very small percentage in Asia Pacific as well as both South and Central America, not to mention Eastern Europe. Cher began releasing dance like tunes after 1998 with the album Believe which managed to sell 4 million copies in Europe. Her record-sales experienced an enormous decline afterwards, her album Living Proof did not even sell a million units in the entire European continent, I think that's when those inflated sales-figures started floating around to help boost her sales somehow. As for her uncertified Singles/Albums, many of them have done quite poorly if not gone pretty much unnoticed both in US and outside.--Harout72 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Apart from all this stuff...In my opinion all of the sales that you've been posted so far, are so approximate and consequently millions of units haven't certified yet; Which means that Cher can easily has sold 200 million records worldwide. However i don't understand why you keep considered all the sources that i posted, to state this fact, unreliable?! Accept this, Cher has sold 200 million records worldiwide!! --FraDany (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is your opinion that she could've easily sold that many records which you were unable to support with a single reliable source instead you chose to continue to believe something that is impossible for her to have achieved especially when a lot of Cher's both singles and albums have not even charted, another batch of her records have charted so poorly that she could not even have sold a 100,000 units in the American market of each material. Having said that, out of all 25 studio albums only 5 albums have managed to enter the Top-20 in her native country and out of 9 compilation albums only one has entered the Top-20. In the same vein, out of 90 singles only 15 have managed to enter the Top-20. Her chartings on those albums/singles which have failed to succeed in The States have been no better neither in Germany nor in UK. So could she have sold 200 million records? The answer is no. Unless you have located absolute reliable sources which claim that outrageous figure, it's futile to say any more. And don't even attach anymore of such sources as these [17], [18] because none of them could be regarded as reliable--Harout72 (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I found on Reuters (one of the sources that you considered reliable...in fact you used it) that Cher has sold over 200 million records; Then i changed the list! Have a nice day! --FraDany (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted due to ignoring our discussion as well as replacing three reliable sources MSNBC, International Herald Tribune and Reuters with less reliable ones. The sales figure by this source is not even within the article but rather is under Transcripts. I have already said this to you once that this source cannot be regarded as reliable. And the third one is not as reliable as the current ones. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please tell me why are unreliable? Secondly tell me the reason why your sources are reliable? In my opinion MSNBC is not so reliable...Are you jealous that Cher has sold over 200 million records?! It seems to be!! I found this source[19]...it is ABC; I think this is so much reliable than all the other ones! --FraDany (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I will make two comments on your question above (Are you jealous that Cher has sold over 200 million records?! It seems to be!!) First, there is absolutely nothing personal for me to be engaged emotionally, I am simply trying to keep the page as vandal free and well sources as I possibly can. Second, this page unlike other autobiographical pages must rely only on sales-figures claimed by very prominent news services. Having said that this source that you seem to be quite fond of is not a news service. As for ABC News and ITN, their content ordinarily could be used to support statements; however, in this case there are other more reliable sources such as MSNBC and International Herald Tribune which happen to be more prominent news services both of which disagree with the first two. Regards. --Harout72 (talk) 23:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I counted Cher selling indicated on this website, and simply impossible, that Cher less than 200 million sold an album, may be how is not onto him good reference, but this is in Wikipédia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.121.105.119 (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You better put Roxette up where it belongs, or proof that it has sold less then 50 millions which as far as I can see you are the only one that is saying. If all the media is saying 70+, why do you doubt that? What kind of evidence do you really want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awakened82 (talk • contribs)

Excuse me, but who are you arguing with? You're demanding an immediate response to your post when the thread you're posting to was finished on January 17. What proof that is needed would be verifiable reliable sources that actually give a dollar figure, not your off-hand speculations. Finally, start signing your posts by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if all information says 70 million +, and you cant find any 100% secure information, why in hell does someone then put it down to lesser 25 million?

Here is some that obviously schould be on the list, but is not -Umm Kulthum, -Billy Holliday -Depeche Mode

I see a tendency that american bands over 50 million sales generally much easier is taken up on the list, I think the explanation is that the person who is responsible for this article is an american. Excuse me if I am wrong.

Awakened82 (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to not jump to erroneous conclusions. Firstly, what information are you talking about. Roxette is not currently included on this list, so there is no available information to look at. You're only responding to a speculative comment from one editor, on the talk page. It's not currently on the list, it implies nothing more than that. If you have reliable sources that would put the band's sales at a higher figure, then by all means, bring them up. The other thing is, there is no person responsible for this article, many people edit articles, this one included. It's completely bad faith to assume that there is an American bias from a specific editor when there have been 221 separate editors for the last 1000 edits, and I'm thinking the person who posted the note that you're objecting to is German. If you want the band included you add it yourself with proper references. Wildhartlivie (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I beg apologize then. Here is some links that shows that Roxette and Ace of Base schould be on the list.

Roxette 45+25=70 million

http://www.svd.se/kulturnoje/nyheter/artikel_472587.svd http://di.se/Nyheter/?page=/Avdelningar/Artikel.aspx%3Fsectionid%3Ddinapengar%26stat%3D0%26menusection%3Dstartsidan%3Bhuvudnyheter%26articleid%3D2007%255C05%255C28%255C234706

Ace of Base over 50 million

http://www.svd.se/kulturnoje/nyheter/artikel_2054771.svd http://www.expressen.se/noje/1.1347119/nu-ska-fansen-skriva-latarna-at-ace-of-base http://www.musikindustrin.se/artikel/187/Comebacken_for_Ace_of_Base_rullar_pa_.html

.--Awakened82 (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe, you were addressing your argument to me which, for some reason, you decided to remove later on. You were asking, what is it that makes me say that

Yes, Svenska Dagbladet is highly reliable, its the news paper that get the largest press support from the swedish state which means its lesser dependent by selling advertisement. I am sorry for my little harsh response before, the thing is that in Sweden only this numbers are always mentioned so for me it was strange that someone here critizise them. If it was so that Roxette and Ace of Base didnt sell as much as I said, I am sure that I would find that somewhere when I am searching in the swedish media. Please add them, and I will make further objective investigations and if I find that is exaggerations I will let you know. I will look through the platinum and gold certifications to see if its reliable that they sold so much. Even if I am swede, I think the most important is that the right information is shared out. ].--Awakened82 (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand, the 50 million figure within the article published by Svenska Dagbladet for Ace of Base is more logical than the 70 million for Roxette. I am counting almost 25 million units for Ace of Base (singles, albums combined) by using the same pattern as I did it for Roxette above. I truly believe that Ace of Base has more records under their belt than Roxette. Well, anyways, I've added both

WP:RSN thought of it as a reliable source [22]. Regards. --Harout72 (talk

) 23:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have found another reliable source stating that Queen has sold 300 million albums. http://www.pxdrive.com/album/QUEEN+(BAND)_pictures_agbcpic/

Please stop moving them to the 100 million section; we all know by now that they've sold 300 million plus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.5.211 (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE PUT QUEEN WHERE THEY SHOULD BE?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.231.193 (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

britney should be pushed upward into the next category. here is the reference

http://popdirt.com/britney-spears-sold-over-100-million-records/35452/

http://popdirt.com/britney-spears-vs-beyonce-vs-christina-aguilera/46750/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.8.166 (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

and the total figures was realeased in about 2006 so it doesnt even include blackout and circus sales. And it was wreported she sold 83 million in 2004. it certainly would have gone up by then —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.8.166 (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't believe i'm bothering to reply to this.

1. "Contributed Anonymously" - the source is not reliable or verifiable

2. It's a blog - the source is not reliable or verifiable

I rest my case. k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 11:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

JACKSON 5 The Jackson 5 should be on tis list because they have sold over 100 million albums worldwide. Reference: http://www.mjjcharts.com/BestSellingMotown.htmBubbles777 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Fan sites are not reliable sources. Period. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jacskon should either be moved up to 1 billion or more or bing cosby should be moved down a list, no way cosby sold 500-999. million records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.30.226 (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Check the sources... 76.192.201.42 (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jackson 5 sold over 100 million records therefore should be added to the list; here are the sources.--RafiCHAMP¹ 04:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC) http://www.nypost.com/seven/03232008/news/nationalnews/jacko_clan_in_a_deep_funk_103188.htm?page=0

Also there are plenty more on google, each stating the exact same response, "over 100 million records sold".--RafiCHAMP¹ 04:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Good sources, clearly reliable, its by nypost, but i dont know how to add this to the article, plus i dont have a account yet, someone please get this done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.30.226 (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I added The Jackson 5 to the list using the article published by New York Post. --Harout72 (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi , the band Norge a-ha have sells over 79 millions albums you can see in this link : http://80smusicjunkies.blogspot.com/2007/03/ha.html http://www.amazon.com/Headlines-Deadlines-Hits-Ha-Region/dp/B00004R78O http://bestuff.com/stuff/a-ha I hope you add this band list of best selling music artist bye oliver —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerryoli (talk • contribs) 13:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We only accept highly reliable third party sources for this page, and none of the above sources you are providing can be regarded as reliable.--Harout72 (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles' recording career stretched from 1962-1970, yet the dates here are 1960-1970. Surely you can't count sales as happening in the first two years when they didn't have a record deal and recorded nothing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.139.179 (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Metallica

Metallica have sold over 100 million albums worldwide, weras someone has replaces them on gthe 100-199 mllion list with Iron Maiden, who have only sold around 70 million albums —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac9801 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Metallica

Metallica have sold over 100 million albums worldwide, wheras someone has replaced them on the 100-199 mllion list with Iron Maiden, who have only sold around 70 million albums according to your source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac9801 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

As I saw that Iron Maiden have been put to 50-75 class, I'd like to point you all to this: http://www.ironmaiden.com/index.php?categoryid=8&p2_articleid=1073 which cites over 70 mil sales of ALBUMS only in contrast to the current reference by SUN that cites 70 over mil records in general. Iron Maiden have released about 30 singles during their career, all of them getting in the top charts of many countries around the globe. Considering that they've put out 14 albums, less than half of their singles and these only have generated more than 70 mil sales and as this article weighs equally albums and singles sales, it only makes sense that Iron Maiden should be restored to the 100 mil table, which is in accordance to the older citation of over 100 mil records sold that has now been removed and should be relisted alongside the new citation I've provided here. At the very least, as the citation I've provided is from Iron Maiden's own page and may not be eligible as a source, it should be considered in favor of the old 100+ mil citation.

Edit

third party citations of 100+ million records:

http://www.timeoutdubai.com/nightlife/features/6460-iron-maiden-in-dubai

http://www.ticketnetwork.com/tickets/iron-maiden-tickets.aspx

http://www.last.fm/music/Iron+Maiden

There's really no excuse for Iron Maiden to not be listed back to the correct table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanloop (talk • contribs) 15:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As you can see here: EMI, Rueters, The Sun, some reliable sources will use the term "albums" and others will use the term "records"; however, I assure you, when it comes to rock acts, they all speak of the same thing, records (singles, albums combined and not necessarily albums only). Normally, the sales of rock bands is based 95% on albums. CD-Singles are sold by those artists/projects who often include numerous remixes on their CD-singles, and such is not the case with Rock acts. See RIAA Certifications and BPI Certifications for Iron Maiden, their certifications are on albums only. Also, see their chartings with their singles which are not as dominant as it has been with their albums. By the way, out of your three citations above, only one is weakly reliable, which again is not as reliable as the article by The Sun (which is currently supporting the sales figure of Iron Maiden). If you could locate highly reliable sources like CNN or BBC stating 100 million records/albums for the act, then I will be happy to move them into a higher bracket. --Harout72 (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I still think when it talks albums it's albums only, it's just that some people more often confuse albums with records than the other way around, but that's just my opinion. Regarding rock acts and singles (and that applies to my Queen topic below as well - I Want it all sold like crazy back in those days) what you said is not entirely true for all rock bands. Sticking to Iron Maiden on this topic, Wasted years, Run to the hills, Can I play with madness, The evil that men do, Be quick or be dead, Fear of the dark, Bring your daughter to the slaughter and Clairvoyant (maybe others too) were highly successful sellers in UK and the US (and everywhere else). Also, keep in mind that Iron Maiden always release their singles in many formats with different b-sides. All in all they should be much much more than 5% of their total sales. Regardless, as this is an argument of pov, here are 3 citations which, while not BBC or CNN, I consider them to be highly reliable (but in case you don't, please let me know why so), one from Daily Mirror UK, one from Yahoo and another from the big australian news site www.news.com.au:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv-entertainment/music/2008/06/27/interview-iron-maiden-115875-20622203/

http://in.news.yahoo.com/indiaabroad/20080131/r_t_ians_nl_general/tnl-iron-maiden-to-kick-off-world-tour-f-b9e311f.html

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,26278,23166158-7484,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanloop (talk • contribs) 10:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the first two of the sources you are providing could be regarded as reliable as there is no a single indication who the authors are. I personally think the third one is only weakly reliable and we should only accept those sources for Iron Maiden that come from more prominent news services than

Daily Mirror is not a good enough source because there's no author signature? I beg to differ here. Many online articles have no signature, that doesn't make them any less reliable. If anything, Sun's article seems like it's been copy-pasted from Iron Maiden's own article but replaced albums with records. Where's the reliability in that? Of course the Sun is a more reliable source than Regina Post there's no point arguing that, but in this case I feel it's evident that the Sun has simply done what I mentioned above. I think you should reconsider, but i can't do much more than that. I'm just going to repeat that you shouldn't throw away daily mirror as a source for the reason you mentioned as it's quite a common online tactic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanloop (talk • contribs) 19:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Who on earth has put Queen in the 100-200 mil range? Even the citation you've published speaks of a vague over 150 million albums ONLY! Do you always have to forget that the article is about albums AND singles sales? How have you decided to put Queen there based on that citation??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanloop (talk • contribs) 20:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Regina Leader-Post - Iron Maiden has sold more than 100 million albums worldwide --Cruento (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey ur lucky iron maiden is even in this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.30.226 (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanloop (talk • contribs) 10:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't he own the list of best-selling music artists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

B/c he sucks, even eminem and biggie smalls sold more then him, hes only famous b/c he died.

1 billion + and counting! not bad for 4 scousers who where not even trying that hard it seems to me. It's simply great timing,John and Paul meeting. George the forgotten genius biting his lip i suspect, and not forgetting the fourth lad, Mr starkey. "lying with his eyes while his hands are busy working overtime". "Dripping from a dead dog's eye". "Wearing a face that she keeps in a jar by the door".If there's anything out there that comes close over an eight year period from the 1st hit to the last I've not been aware of it. Neither has anyone else i think.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinthomas123 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Green Day has sold over 65 million albums. It's actually on one of wikipedia's pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.190.139 (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bee Gee's were born in the UK but grew up and started their musical careers in Australia.

Dear Harout72, these sources are reliable enough to say that Supertramp should be in this list. Or not?

• Roger Hodgson, official site* 80 million
• 60 million
• Glp, Supertramp 60 million
• 60 million
• 60 million
• Supertramp sold 60 million albums, source of the year 2000!!! --> to me very reliable

Supertramp should be in the category of 50 million+.Christo jones (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for discussing the reliability of the sources. I am afraid but none of the above sources can be regarded as reliable. First, let me say that official sites cannot be used as third party reliable sources

Sony/BMG are acceptable as well. Again, please refer to the reference section to see what I mean by reliable sources. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk

) 23:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)