Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 179: Line 179:


*'''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. [[User:Engineer Bob|Engineer Bob]] 07:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:Engineer Bob|Engineer Bob]] 07:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

*'''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.--[[User:Fermatprime|Fermatprime]] 02:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:28, 7 October 2005

  • Strong Keep Why don't people just try to improve the accuracy, rather than blaming it? This is a collabrative community, isn't it?
  • Strong Delete Metallica, 10 billion albums sold? Yeah right. And the Beatles aren't even on the list. I think we should do another one like that with certifiable sources and lock it from edition if it is possible. That should be a good idea.
  • Delete Entirely fake figures from sources that are not accurate. It has become an article of fanboys of bands. Get rid of it!
  • Delete Full of inflated figures from shockingly dubious sources. Just look at the reference for Deep Purple's ludicrous claim of 100 million sold. This is a band that hasn't even sold 10 million in the USA. There is no way they sold more in countries where they generally charted worse. Just because some press agent makes a claim doesn't mean it's fact.
  • Keep it's a useful (though slightly innacutrate)
  • Delete it's highly innacutrate.
  • Delete Just go and delete it It's useless
  • Delete based soley on it claiming the Beatle's are a US group.... Xeno
  • Delete. This 'article' is, by far, the worst one on Wikipedia. Frankly, its getting out of hand. The figures are exaggerated and unreliable (there is no worldwide tracking system for sales) the page is vandalised incessantly. Many users take the page as a 'fansite' or forum, and they come here everyday and make false numbers and change the list to suit their artists. Really, what kind of article is this if its so unrealiable, people have to do their own research so that they can check if this article is accurate? At times, I want to revert the vandalism, but the page is so destroyed, I dont know the correct version to revert it to. Journalist (talk · contribs)

*Keep Gilgamesh he 07:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Any reasons in particular?
  • Delete ProhibitOnions 14:43:43, 2005-08-18 (UTC) The page is near-useless as a reference, and the fact that it lacks a methodology makes it prone to inflated fan figures, which are highly partisan. Similar non-scientific articles, particularly Biggest-selling female musician (Note: also marked for deletion), which repeats the same exaggerated fan claims, must also be deleted.
  • Delete as i already mentioned to you on the discussion page there is no reliable "methodology" everything that was suggested by yourself and others was just as faultless, if not more so. Also, are sales that importnat in "music" anyway? We can celebrate a musicains carrer in their articles, regardless of how many albums/singles/candy bars that they have sold 195.93.21.1
  • Delete, I say delete it until there's a better way to verify cd sales
  • Keep. There is no way to verify record sales, estimates are all that is available. -user:Fallout_boy
  • Abstain. In one sense this article is unfixable. To do it right, you'd have to have reliable worldwide data (doesn't exist), a better wiki table formatting/numbering mechanism (doesn't exist), a real database query mechanism for the stats (doesn't exist), and no vandals (too many exist). Vorash spent tons of time and effort on this list, but eventually he was driven insane and left Wikipedia. On the other hand, even if you delete this article, someone else will create one down the road, and it won't be as good as the one Vorash put together before he left. Minus the vandalism, and with all the necessary qualifications that were given, the article did have some merit, in that it gave an order of magnitude idea of who sold a really lot of records and who didn't sell so much. Sometimes fuzzy data is all you have to work with. Wasted Time R 15:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, There is no way to verify, or know exactly who sold the most CDs, so therefore it is an estimate. Until we can verify it, and know exactly who sold many CDs, this article should be deleted.-User:jfriedman11746
THERE WILL NEVER BE A WAY TO VERIFY RECORD SALES. Especially on older releases, sales were never recorded, and even recent releases are difficult to keep track of sales. user:Fallout boy
  • Delete --AVainio 12:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Many of the accounts are false. Annie Lennox has sold 50 million? Maybe, but her own webpage states that her two albums have sold 12 million copies. Ok, maybe the 50 million (mentioned in some Live8 materials) could take into account the sales from Eurythmics. If so, why does Eurythmics have 80 million albums sold. That is just one example. These figures will never make sense. Just too little accuracy and too many wild, opinionated guesses thrown around.[reply]
  • Delete --Woodchuck96 No validity, insane numbers, almost no accuracy - all in all, an horrid article which is a shame for Wikipédia.
  • Strong Delete - Besides the American/Euro-centric nature of the artists mentioned, there just aren't many resources to validate the numbers. For example, I remember news of Coldplay selling in the range of 20 million records at the beginning of the year. Just weeks before the release of X&Y, EMI give press releases claiming that the band has now sold 25+ million records. I doubt a band can sell 5 million records (in just 6 months) globally between releases.... in other words, the labels put their own spin on the numbers whenever they need to promote an act. --Madchester 01:26, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, evens sales info from the RIAA is as unreliable as anything, it is not a 100% truth.
  • Keep - This holds a lot of estimates on artist sales, and the article itself says that the information is suspect. However, this page is still a reliable reference (and is probably the best reference available in the world because the sources are so varied and averaged) People still have a ned to find out whereabouts famous artists are on this list, and there is no other place on the internet where you can find results tabled like this, which regularly get updated. If you're going to delete this, you might as well burn older school atlases "Because they're unreliable", as well as delete a significant amount of wikipedia. Those areas would be places like biblical references (only one reference), theories and death tolls. Wikipedia is a place to pool all the information on the internet, so why not keep it that way? --Mahogany h00r 19:35, August 21, 2005 (GMT+12)
  • Keep There are no doubt a lot of mistakes on this list. However there will always be mistakes on these kinds of lists. Even recordlabels are often promoting artists by quoting much larger recordsales than the actual numbers to boost sales and make an image. However I think this list is as good as it gets. In adittion to " offical numbers there are also numbers for bootlegrecordings and so on. These kinds of list will never be accurate. However they give an general idea.

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 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 (UTC)[reply]
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, Best-selling musicians in the United States, since the sales figures there are relatively verifiable through an official source, i.e., the 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.
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)

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]
  • 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.

I'm sorry, but that's exactly what this article is.

  • 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)

Renomination for Deletion

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

  • 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
  • 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_best-selling_music_artists&oldid=24941505"