Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of best-selling music artists

I have also noticed that a lot of posters only talks about US sales. This is OK, since it's the only country who has an official statistic. However it does'nt mean that there is'nt a world outside the US with 6 billion people. Just because an artists has sold 2 million in the US, does'nt mean that they haven'nt sold 40 million in the rest of the world.

It is also noted on the list that: In general there is no official organization that certifies worldwide record sales (such as the RIAA does for U.S. record sales). Thus, there are few if any reliable figures to go into this list. Fans, biographers, and record lables may overestimate sales figures for publicity purposes. Many of bestselling artists from Asia, Africa and Latin America are still not included because of the lack of data. Thus, the list cannot be considered definitive, and should be taken with a large grain of salt.

I think that is good enough warnig. If we delete this list, we might as well delete all the bio's as well. Proabably a lot of mistakes there too. Soon we wont have a lexica at all............ ( User: MNorge1978 )

• Comment. Careful now, saying that removing this project page will also lead to the deletion of artist bios is a slippery slope argument. Artist pages like Radiohead and Coldplay are all respectable, even with no details of total album sales. --Madchester 15:01, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
• There is virtually no need to mention sales info in Bio's, not in Wikipedia.
• Keep I mostly agree with the comments below (I am still laughing about the 5 billion sales proposed for Cher). However, I think it would be better to reach a consensus about what kind of estimations may or may not be used. After all there are albums made gold or diamond regularly, which means that some estimations are indeed accurate. I propose to keep the article, indicate each time what kind of source is used, and reach a consensus about which of these sources are reliable (and delete the entries that are clearly not). User: Nyco
• Come off it, there is NO CONSENSUS that is FACT. Just because albums are "certified" for sales, doesn't make it "more reliable". Album certifications rely a lot on what the record label say. Unless someone from the certification company (I.E the RIAA) has PERSONALLY COUNTED every copy of the record, even those statistics should be taken with a pinch of salt and NOT given credit as facts. If the RIAA's figures were so accurate, their certification of sales wouldn't be such a mess, i.e Led Zeppelin suddenly going up from "50 million" to "106 million" since 1990. It's complete fabrication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.1 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 21 August 2005
• Delete It's shoddy, downright shoddy, and should not be tolerated. Agamemnon2
• Keep I see that some people are taking this matter much too seriously. I just look at pages like this to keep me entertained. However, with the deletion of this page would result in artist page deletions, such as the Peter Gabriel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.69.228.174 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 21 August 2005

How would PG's pages be deleted? Again with the slippery slope argument... The only thing that would be deleted would be a link to this project page and perhaps the sales figures on the discography section. Otherwise, the rest of Gabriel's articles contain verifiable facts. --Madchester 18:48, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Most slop is slippery. Vorash did sometimes insert the sales figures he found into the individual artist articles, as well as almost always adding a See also to here, which would now become a red link (and tops on the articles desired to be created list!). Wasted Time R 18:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This page may be too incorrect regarding number of sales. But it has a lot more information in it in a tabular form than number of sales. I would like to have that information somewhere else (with some other topic). Otherwise, their will never be a way to correct the sales.--Anupam Srivastava 21:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, I withdraw my delete vote considering the fact that my argument was not strong enough in the first place. Secondly, I agree that since there are so many votes for Keeping it, deletion will only result in recreation of this page, never leading to its improvement.

• Delete. No international governing body? No way of determining who has sold the most. Like for the
  World's tallest structures, there's actually a head honcho called the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat that has set out different categories and rules for building heights. Without some global party overlooking sales figures, those numbers will always be contestable.--LeoTheLion 22:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep A page I've been looking for for ages. I quickly copied it since a unique attempt is submerged in a perfectionist debate. I see a lot of negative votes from readers who apparently overlooked the top page "Note". I propose them to channel that energy into improving the list. Personally, as long as the limitations of the list are clearly stated, and every entry is tracable through source mentions, I can make up my own mind about the degree of exactitude. --Karl1000 00:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and see if it can't be protected from vandalism, like Wikipedia's main page. Discussion of changes or updates can be made on the discussion page. Personally, I like the page, despite its (current) obvious flaws. If semi-reliable data can be found for the artists, and the page protected from vandalism and grossly inflated numbers, I see no reason why it can't stay. I'd also like to add that other countries BESIDES the US do keep tallies of record sales, contrary to what someone above stated. Versions of the RIAA exist in many (even most) non-Third World countries, and many do have searchable web-sites.--Firsfron 02:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because the rankings are unverifyable. Even listings from RIAA (and others) could be challanged - and in any case, duplicating RIAA's listings could raise copyright issues. The best thing to do is write an article discussing the issue of sales rankings and give links to sites with such lists --Ezeu 08:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC) I did vote delete, but now think the article should be a keep - because there are many votes to keep. If removed, we will just have the article being constantly recreated. If they want it, let them have it. Really aint a big deal is it? Not considering all the other crap there is as Wikipedia.--Ezeu 21:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is suggesting "duplicating RIAA's listings", and in point of fact since the List of Best-selling Music Artists is a worldwide list, that's not even an issue (RIAA only certifies the US). However, the RIAA sales data can be cited as a source, and even though their data "could be challenged", it usually isn't: these are the officially recognized bodies, after all. At some point, you have to stop believing in conspiracy theories and just go with official estimates. Deleting the entire list because you don't believe the RIAA numbers is kinda like saying "let's delete the Wikipedia articles on the U.S. Census, 'cause I know Philadelphia has more people than that!"--Firsfron 10:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How tedious! Anyway, my vote remains the same. - Ezeu 13:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What else would be created to fill its place? It definitely fulfills a great need as an overview page and does so as accurately as it can. 150.101.189.156 14:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The fact that there's a disclaimer and lengthy cautionary note at the top of the article does not bode well for the validity of the article's contents. --207.236.66.194 19:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This page should definitely be kept since it is the only list of artists with their sales figures that people have easy access to. It's not perfect by a long shot, but what is? This page should definitely be kept, and I will create a new one if it isn't. --agetoagedc 01:53, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • ^ If you create a new list, it probably will be deleted for the same reasons this one is being deleted. Journalist (talk · contribs)
    • ^You're wrong there, Journalist, and you should read the wikipedia deletion policy: if a page is recreated several times after deletions, then it is kept because the fact that it is recreated proves that it is of interest... Nyco (talk · contribs)
      • ^ Actually, the exact wording is "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article". The policy does not say that the article is automaticall kept. Furthermore, This article conflicts with the Verifiability, No Original research, and NPOV policies. It is also reverted daily by some who are trying to maintain it and others who want to change figures to suit their fav artists. Wikipedia is about accuracy and right now this article is far from it. Journalist ^{C.File:Smilie.gif Holla @ me}
• Delete As I said it needs to go.--Meanie 04:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, for two reasons: 1) The majority of people who want this article to be deleted have not put up a decent argument or good enough reason for its deletion. And 2) It is a decent list of best-selling artists that is useful in a historical context to the music industry. Most of the estimates can be researched and linked to actual sales of artists, although some are still slightly difficult to pin point it is still an article worth saving. Piecraft 22:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The delete voters are taking this too seriously. It is a topic of enormously wide interest, and Wikipedia should do its best to cover it. Osomec 00:54, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Create a new article say,
  RIAA. Not all countries have the luxury of such a counting system and it's a futile exercise to estimate the sales in other countries, where statistics are not so easy to come by. --Madchester
  03:38, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • See
    List of best selling music artists in US. Wasted Time R 03:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I think it should be redirected to that the Best-selling musicians in the United States per the site's naming conventions.  :-) --Madchester 05:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Although the mentioned numbers are somewhat inaccurate for sure, they do provide a basis for comparison which is what many wish to see. I recommend that a range of numbers is provided for each artist/band instead of just one. Hamid 22:30, 25 Aug 2005 (GMT)
• Delete* These figures are rediculous. I am the biggest Oasis, Beatles and U2 fan going, I checked the RIAA, BPI and the European equivalent and no way have these artists sold so many based on certified awards. Oasis have sold 40 million based on certified awards. U2 is 90 million. Theres no point having this page if the info is incorrect. Mediatraffic also provided accurate information which refutes the information on this page. (Previous unsigned comment by 82.37.10.44)
• Delete* By far the worse article I have seen on Wikipedia based on the fact that none of the data is accurate and I assume that is what this community prides itself on.
• Delete* Totally unaccurate.
• Delete* Whoever said the RIAA usually isn't challenged is missing a point. So what if it's not usually challenged The fact remains their data is not solid fact. The RIAA flaws are easy to see in their sales fro Led Zeppelin. Since 1980, if we go by RIAA information this band, who havent had much chart action since then have somehow managed to have kept up in the sales leagues over the years with Madonna, Michael Jackson, Garth Brooks and Britney Spears, the top selling acts of their time, to keep moving back ahead of them on the all-time sellers list. I also find it funny how after Garth Brooks leaped ahead of Led Zeppelin with a after huge #1 album in 1997, Led Zeppelin suddenly sold enough records to go back up the list ahead of him. What is being suggested is we just take a "say so" figure from the "offical sources" like the RIAA just because they said so. How is that doing what this list is MEANT to do? It's not! Is that what Wikipedia is about? Not listing facts? Unless their is some magical place in America where Led Zeppelin records are selling non stop and billboard are unaware of it, then this proves that the RIAAs figures are just as much fiction as Harry Potter.
• Keep Valuable information that is not easy to find somewhere else. With a note that it can never be completely accurate. --WS 10:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Some articles include a note like that, because figures are regularly changing but even they have a reliable source (say for movie box office totals from Exhibitor Relations). There's no such reliable source to track the music sales figures as they change. --70.27.20.140 18:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The arguments against this list being too narrowly Anglo- and Americocentric are specious. I note the presence of artists in the top 49 such as Nana Mouskouri, Mireille Mathieu, Alla Pugacheva, Wei Wei (韦唯), and a host of Indian artists all of whom are largely unknown in the United States and many of whom I speculate are poorly known in the UK. Yes, the list will have its faults and inaccuracies as figures are revised, but most of the acts here are legitimately top 500 acts worldwide, and the problems with the methodology and the accuracy of the sources is clearly laid out. --Craig 20:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep with the caveat of putting a big(er) bolded disclaimer as to the list's accuracy and scientific merits (those being none at all). There's no need to remove information like this simply because there are inaccuracies; keep it up and it will become more accurate as new information becomes known. Just removing it is tantamount to censorship imo; most people will look on the page for entertainment purposes. Personally I find the list of countries of origin for the bands more interesting than sales figures, and that's another reason to keep it right there. The only real problem is deterring vandalism :/
• Delete...also where is Connie Francis on the list? She certainly should be near the top.
• Keep -- But... 1) Needs to be improved, not deleted. 2) Should carry an inaccuracy warning at the top. Perhaps an ongoing/current event tag would be useful as well. 3) I'm not sure that there is any other source available for this comprehensive of information, whether it is inaccurate or not. Jsymmetry 23:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with Jsymmetry, it needs to be improved. I am sure there is a list of RIAA sales figures out there somewhere which would validate the list and the positions where they're at. [[Briguy52748 00:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)]][reply]
• Keep I haven't seen any other place where there is a list like this, so even if it is prone to inaccuracy, it could be protected and improved over time...
• Keep, but agree with the points stated by Jsymmetry above. Definitely needs some sort of warning that the values are for entertainment value only, and Wikipedia makes no claims as to their accuracy. BorgHunter 12:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, just because an article is a challenge to make accurate and maintain, doesn't mean we should delete it. This is useful information. the wub "?/!" 13:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I expect Wikipedia to follow higher standards than letting this article slip thru. Until the numbers can be checked and verified it should be removed ASAP.--SunnyD 01:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Missing many Asian artists like Jacky Cheung, Anita Mui, Jay Chau and others. I use Wikipedia as a reference for some of my school work and this article makes me question the overall validity of the site. --Rightsaidfred 01:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No universal counting standards make the article's contents falliable. What is exactly being counted in the list? Albums only? Singles? Live EPs? DVDs? Song downloads? Each figure seems to encompass different items in its total sales. --Winning-Eleven 23:08, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.. Just make sure there are actual sources. JustifED737 15:28, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Good article. Gold Stur 19:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very misleading in cases where people put their favorite band or artist near the top and the change goes unnoticed. Also, there's no way to confirm any of these statistics.
• Delete. There's a lot of sources, but many of them aren't authorities on the music industry, let alone music sales.
• Keep You have to think about the artists on this list who are represented factually, such as Amy Grant (I have done my research, she has in fact sold 26 million albums/singles/EPs). Everyone who wants this page deleted only talks about the inaccuracies on this list. But we can't forget that there is an impressive majority on this list whose entries are very accurate. I think this page should definitely, without a doubt be kept. --69.19.170.122 03:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although i cannot argue with the facts (and at least I'm happy Beatles are on top) some of my favorite bands are far too far down, and I dont want to think of them that way Thethinredline
• Strong Delete The list is highly inaccurate
• AbstainThis article should be kept if various parts can be verified. It should be locked and kept as a place where people can compare different artists. If it cannot be locked when at a higher standard then the only use of it is as a list of Music artists and bands.
  Cokehabit 11:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete highly inaccurate and alot of people just fake statistic in favor of the bands they like.
• Strong Delete Biased and unaccurate. What are the reasons why it should be kept anyway? Wikipedia's supposed to be an encyclopedia. EN-CY-CLO-PE-DIA. No a 'blog' where everyone can put his own personal sh*t.

• Delete Cliff Richards outselling the Stones? Bad data is worse than no data. Frank from Ottawa 69.196.171.182 02:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree. mrholybrain 17:37, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it can become accurate, and will be useful info. .::Imdaking::. ^{Tlk | E-M} 04:21:00, 2005-09-11 (UTC)
• Delete if the data being displayed are not footnoted, somewhat verifiable, and considered at least somewhat reliable. It's a shame. It would be better (perhaps) to have a link to other sources for similar information, whether RIAA listings or at least record labels' publicly announced tallies (for information only). hadley 17:11, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a useless list full of inaccurate information—I actually had high hopes for this article in the beginning. Well it looks like those hopes were shattered, because this has become the worst article on Wikipedia. I mean, who really cares whether Kylie Minogue sold sixty million albums or sixty million singles, or if the Spice Girls have sold over twenty-three million copies of their debut album? The information is useful—very useful—but not for this article. These "stats" should be sent to the individual articles. Now please delete this article. It is just truly horrendous. Winnermario 23:59, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep . There should be room for a list like this.--Jerryseinfeld 17:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.Until there's some universal counting standard in place, there's no possible way of ensuring the validity of this list. It's open to A LOT of doubt at the moment.--129.97.58.55 22:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but with regret. In theory it's a very useful article, but would only be so if the figures could be trusted. And each and every one of them could well be wide of the mark. --HighHopes ^{(T)⋅(+)⋅(C)⋅(E)} 17:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination for Deletion

DELETE

Why? Because all of these people who wanted to salvage this list, have had since this voting started to do it. The quality of the article continues to degrade, and if you look at it now it looks really bad, the numbers are even more fudgeded, and its just a plain mess. User:Meanie

• Strong Delete Incase this is still going, it should be gone, its a horrible list. The Fascist Chicken 03:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've been using guide what I might want to buy/download. Now I see people want to delete it?! If its inaccurate or cannot be verified say so, but it has served a useful purpose for me at least. Gtoomey 13:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, keep, keep Yes, it's inaccurate, and very, very interesting. Must-keep. +H+ 23. Sept. 05
• Keep in perpetual VFD status This way everyone who works on it, will never know if the whole thing will be wiped out the next minute. Appropriate. Wasted Time R 13:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm sorry that I first stumbled across this article while the "vote for deletion" tag was removed; in retrospect it appears that I wasted my time trying to fix formatting & sorting errors. Unlike several other voters, the fact that the list is based on estimates doesn't bother me. But in just a few days of observation it's become apparent that this article has become a soapbox for those wishing to promote their favorite artists, and that it can never be protected from vandalism. Engineer Bob 07:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just because an article is prone to vandalism and inaccurate edits does not mean it should be deleted. Should we delete George W. Bush? His page is vandalized quite often. The Current Events page gets all sorts of inaccurate edits. Should we get rid of it? Wikipedia is a collaborative community, and it has its positives and its negatives. When we see a negative, we should try to make it positive instead of just smashing it.--Fermatprime 02:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No way of verifying data KrisW6 08:12, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: impossible to verify, constantly being falsified by fanboys without anyone adequately fixing it. --Jacj 17:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As for those who say this article is unverifiable, then about half of wikipedia should also be deleted for also being unverifiable. This article has been nominated for deletion several times and as survived them. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the vandalism was being executed by people who want this article deleted.--Fallout boy 04:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We should fix the list so that's accurate, and protect it from vandalism. --ApolloBoy 05:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I do consider it useful even though it's not completely accurate. Deleteme42 13:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As long as the disclaimers are kept on top, it is a useful starting place. Ellen Whyte
• Delete There's no reason to keep this on here if none of it can be proven in any way. Maybe an unnumbered list of artists who may be amongst the best selling, but this? No. Plus, it looks very shoddy and unprofessional.
• Delete. I've seen more accurate lists before, and some of these listings seem like fallacies.
• This afd nomination was
  Cryptic (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The state of this page is a good indicator of the state of the article! Wasted Time R 15:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete and first let me echo
  WP:NOR. Beyond that, all "hard number" information will likely be culled from fan sites (either artist run or 3rd party) and thus has inherent POV problems. In my opinion, there is absolutely no encyclopedic value in an article that is not based on factual information. On a side note, did the original AfD ever conclude? If so, would it be possible to archive the previous AfD so we are not looking at a ton of votes on a finished AfD?--Isotope23 17:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. GOOD GOD WOULD YOU ANONYMOUS VOTERS SHUT THE HELL UP? There. Now that I've had a cathartic scream, while there is no definite measure of artist sales it is possible to cite various passable lists that are out there and get a general idea of who the best-selling artists are, with citation of who thinks who is where. It's a valid topic. Lord Bob 17:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and delete somewhat. Molotov (talk)
  19:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per Isotope23. --
  talk • contribs • web ] 22:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as notable list of artists. Alternatively, the RIAA list should be used for a List of best-selling music artists. If other certifying countries had similar lists this could be a disambiguation page. Capitalistroadster 00:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above.  Grue  16:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unverifiable, unmaintainable, of no encyclopedic value. MCB 21:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep- It is useful and after the grain of salt warning, fair to be used or not used as reference. It will continure to be tweaked. No harm done. TheSource — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.210.192 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 October 2005
• Keep, just because it may not be accurate doesn't mean it should be deleted... Catz 02:43, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per Isotope23. Xoloz 03:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because only in the US and the UK the charting numbers are exact, so this is impossible... igordebraga ≠ 17:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• [apparently] Keep. Im sorry I deleted everybodies responses about this topic but simply put, your bickering like a bunch of kids. Most of what you people say is not justified. Face it some of you are bias towards the topic [as stupid as that may sound] . Although I do admit that the "list" isnt 100% correct, but atleast there are links to web pages to where the author got this information. But my point is instead of bickering over the topic and wasting time we join together to recreate the page to make it a more accurate worldwide best sellers list that we all agree on and provide factuale evident to prove each response . After all this is wikipedia where were in control of the development of topics on this site. -- 18:29, 23 October 2005 70.128.143.78 [placed here instead of in blankout]
• Keep but update a little, wolfetones for example in ireland have been around for around 40 years abd have definitely sold enough albums to amke the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.33.77 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete due to fundamental unverifiability. In the absence of a clean central source for data, I don't see how this could ever conform to a reasonable standard of quality. -Colin Kimbrell 14:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.