Jump to content

Talk:List of best-selling music artists

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 208.96.85.6 (talk) at 21:26, 30 September 2008 (→‎Where Is Tupac?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the List of best-selling music artists article.

Please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~~~~ ). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them == A Descriptive Header ==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.


INCLUDE IRON MAIDEN

Iron Maiden have sold over 85 million albums worldwide, yet someone has VANDALISED this article and removed them. There are already 2 topics on this discussion page asking for them to be included; yet NO-ONE has acted.

I do not have sufficient knowledge of wikipedia's workings or rules to do this myself. There are many responsible users who are capable of including them, but they have ignored requests to make this a reliable article - twice.

Either someone else does it, or I'll ram them in somewhere and risk mucking the whole thing up. To those who are reading, it's your choice; you can either quickly include them yourselves, or have me put it in incorrectly and constantly reverting back to old edits again and again and again on numerous different computers until someone gets the message and sorts this article out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.94.195 (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major clean up

OK, im going to go through the entire article removing all unreliable claims, the article needs a good purge. There are 2 options;-

  • A) Remove the crap source and replace it with a Fact tag.
  • B) Completely remove the claim if the source is crap.

So we are going to vote on which is the best method and run with it. I'll keep it open for 2 weeks, if there isnt a clear cut "consensus" the timeframe can be extended.

May I please ask where the beach boys are? I believe they are the #1 selling american band... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.100.102 (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • How is Journey not on this list? Their albums are a combined 46-times platinum alone in the United States, according to the RIAA website:

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTopArt I just want to see my favorite band get the recognition it has earned for its success. I understand that it is easy to inadvertently overlook someone here and there when making a list like this, and I appreciate you making this information available to the public. Thank you. Ceompc (talk) 08:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vote (or "consensus" if you want to be a wiki bureacrat)

How about just following the wikipedia guidelines? What you consider to be "crap" could actually be a reliable reference. As was evident in the recent incident. Moreover, it seems you are taking role as an authority figure within this article, which raises other concerns. 220.253.148.207 (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No really, i have some experience getting these articles up to a reasonable standard. Because someone decides to actually sort an article out that doesnt mean they OWN the article. We would only allow sources that would be accepted in a Featured List review, which is the ultimate goal of this article. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but if a disputed reference has the support from other editors, it should not be disregarded. It should be taken to the reliable sources board. 220.253.205.216 (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that only 1 claim is removed at a time with a clear edit summary to say why. It will be easier for edits to moniter what is being removed. If someone opposes a deletion they can bring it back to the talk page for consensus. Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I would look at the omission of the American rock group Journey. They have 45 million album sales in the US alone and would at least make the 50 - 74 million list (see www.RIAA.com and click on "Gold and Platinum" for historic US album sales) when including worldwide album sales (possibly the 75 million + list). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.111.63 (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC) U2 has sold 170 million albums!!its a fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajayu2bono (talk • contribs) 08:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

200 million to 500 million records

Has anyone else noticed that the lines of this section are really fat in comparison to the other benchmarks? Can someone sort that, i dont understand why its happened. Cheers. --Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 17:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that it's done. Cheers, Kodster (heLLo) (Me did that) 20:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


FALSE INFORMATION

Metallica has sold 100 million records so change it to 100 million to 199million —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unholybuddha (talk • contribs) 03:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen has sold more than 300 million records,so it wouldn't be in 100-199 million records,so change it!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.35.79.16 (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the information on this list are falses. Michael Jackson has NOT sold 500 million records worldwild, he has sold 750 million, not even Frank Sinatra, who has sold less than 15 million records in USA (making the 500 million seller status impossible). Jackson has sold a maximum of 750 million records across the world.

For the 200 million seller status, we don't need to say that Whitney Houston has NOT sold over 200 million records worwild. Houston's sales are less than 150 million (130 million is the right information). Celine Dion has sold 200 million (with singles sales) and Mariah Carey the same thing. So why is Carey in the category of 100 to 150 million sellers if she has sold more than 166 million records and 200 with single sales?

And another ridiculous thing. ABBA has sold more than 300 million records? Totally impossible. Their sales in the US are less than 15 million (12 million maximum) so their 300 million seller status is totally, but TOTALLY impossible. They have not sold more than 150 million records in career. In fact, I'm not sure if the 100 million status is right for ABBA. So make the right corrections and stop to put protections to protect false and fanatic information.

Correction: Just because an artist has not sold tens of millions in the US does not mean they have not sold the stated 100 million + on this list. There are other markets besides the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.52.229 (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.11.176 (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, somewhat contrary to your assertions, all the figures cited in the article are supported by verifiable sources, and you say otherwise. What psychic powers do you have that are denied to the rest of us? --Rodhullandemu 00:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that some of the sources cited do not even look remotely credible, I must also bring attention to the Elvis Presley citation. He is listed as over 500 million records, however a quick check at the citation indicates that he is listed as 1 billion+ in the source. The source is perhaps not credible, since it's from the official website, but did someone fail to take into account an extra 500 million records when putting Elvis up on this page? After all, 1 billion implies something quite different to "500 million or more". At least do a split of the record sales differently. JFonseka people are forgetting that RECORDS mean BOTH albums and singles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.180.161.10 (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proof that Elvis sold more than 500 million albums:-

His sales are very much, 2 billion in excess, In Guinness book's 1970's edition it was written that he has sold 1 billion albums, its now 2 billion and more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justicejayant (talk • contribs) 09:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


JORDAN HAS FOUND SOME PROBLEMS--- ok so ABBA has sold over 300 million records it was said on the ABBA biography on the Biography channel and The Bee Gees have sold more than 220 million records, it says that on their own page plus it has been said on the Biography channels episode on the Brothers Gibb group. It has been estimated that the Bee Gees' record sales total more than 220 million,[2] easily making them one of the best-selling music artists of all-time. so change the bee gees from the 100-199 million to 200 million+ list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.200.27 (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(PEOPLE FORGOT THAT RECORDS MEAN BOTH ALBUMS AND SINGLES - THE RIAA LIST OF BIGGEST SELLERS JUST SAY BIGGEST ALBUMS SELLING ARTISTS...) and abba isn't not that popular in usa, but in a lot of countries you can find that their records are one of the best selling there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.102.67.30 (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not To Rain On The Parade But Michael Jackson Only Got 230000000 Sales And Sinatra 380000000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.5.90 (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Clean Up

We need to clean up this article with better sources. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my preposal above. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 11:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay

I'm pretty sure British band Coldplay have now sold over 50 million units following the release of their fourth studio album Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends which stormed to number one across the world. The single Viva la Vida also reached number one in UK and USA. Their previous albums were Parachutes in 2000, A Rush of Blood to the Head in 2002 and X&Y in 2005 which all reached number one and collected many awards including Grammys, MTV awards and Brit awards. They sold over 35 million units on their first three albums. Officially Mr X (talk) 09:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously trying to say that a band has sold 15 million albums in about a month and a half? Michael Jackson never even sold that well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaremathras (talk • contribs) 01:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They've sold over 40 million albums as of today, so they're not quite there. Just wait for another album, and then they're on here. Won't be long till Radiohead are here as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.94.195 (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Record Company or Label based sources

I believe Record Company based sources such as these [2], [3] should not be removed as most of news magazines/papers do rely on sales figures provided by artists' record companies. --Harout72 (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert von Karajan

For some reason the original source for him, which can be seen in the archive below, has been removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists/Archive6

Should that one not suffice, here is another. This time it's from The Times:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article4287949.ece

"his albums have sold more than 200 million copies"

The 200+ figure is also mentioned in the report of a WIPO judgment from 2001:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1578.html

"More than 200 Million CDs and traditional vinyl long playing records have been sold of Herbert von Karajan's work."

I hope all this counts as sufficient to keep him in the 200+ million section. Thanks.

See Also

What does everyone think of maybe a "see also" list on this page. For example

  • Best Selling Album
  • Artist Who Hit number one in the Us

Would that be good or unnecessary? I noticed in the past there used to be a list like that. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 21:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Springsteen WorldWide Sales

Bruce Springsteen has sold more then 100 million worldwide. 63,5 million in the Us, only.

http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=tblTopArt

From greasylake and Worldwide albums net:

Greetings from Asbury Park: 3,500,000

The Wild the Innocent and The E street Shuflee: 3,500,000

Born to Run: 10,000,000

Darkness of the Edge of town: 5,500,000

The River: 10,000,000

Nebraska: 4,500,000

Born in the USA: 29,000,000

Live 75/85: 7,500,000

Tunnel of Love: 8,500,000

Human Touch: 4,500,000

Lucky Town: 4,000,000

XXPlugged: 1,500,000

Greatest Hits: 15,000,000

The Ghost of Tom Joad: 3,000,000

Tracks: 1,000,000

18 Tracks: 1,000,000

Live in New York City: 1,500,000

The Rising: 5,000,000

Devils & Dust: 2,000,000

Essential: 2,500,000

From United World Chart and Worldwide albums net:

We shall overcome: 2,000,000

Magic: 2,500,000

Total Aprox: +127,500,000

Personally, I don't doubt that he's sold as many records as you claim, but so far no one has provided a reliable source that states such figure for Bruce Springsteen. --Harout72 (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Harout72 your argument is; 63,5 million copies in the Us, 0 copies outside the us. This criteria is absurd. The world is most than one country.

T.Rex

Why do you keep adding this source when at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard it was thought to be neither reliable nor acceptable. I know that you are aware of that decision because I notified you about it at your talk-page --Harout72 (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The liner notes of the album were taken from a media article written in 1977 before the premiere of Marc Bolan's TV show, making it a reliable and independent, third-party source. The fact that it was later re-published by Demon Records (now Demon Music Group) and licensed by Granada Televison and Bolan's record company, Wizard (Bahamas), clearly makes it a more reliable and credible source than a small local newspaper whose claim is only based upon the peak of Bolan and T.Rex's commercial success (a grossly incorrect claim, I might add). Also, nowhere on that noticeboard was it definitively stated that the source I have added is not acceptable. And, Harout, check over your additions in this edit once more, will you? — Travelling Tragition (Talk) 23:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask you something, why are you so attached to only this one source if a band such as T.Rex has really sold 200 million units (at least as you claim so) whereas all other artists who've sold over 100 million records can be found in many reliable sources, in other words, why are you having such difficult time locating a source which we all could agree on. As for what's been said at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard it's quite clear that in the case of List of best-selling music artists your suggested source should not be used. By the way, if you're referring to my reversion because it also contains Whitney Houston relying on a source coming out of LastFM, I will remove it as it's not a reliable source, at the time I was only trying to deal with your persistence over that source.--Harout72 (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Harout72 again ignores the discussion when someone gives a fair explanation. Moreover, providing more unreliable references to the list. 220.253.145.57 (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply to your points tomorrow (I can't right now), but I will take the time to point out that the lead section of this article says, "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." I have presented a claim which has been published by both a record label and a newspaper. What reasons are there to exclude it from this article? — Travelling Tragition (Talk) 21:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to have a discussion when the other person doesn't want to reply to you, Harout. — Travelling Tragition (Talk) 18:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should simply relist it at Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask the people over there to lay their opinions again by bringing it to their attention that the source has been posted there once before but you disagree or (as you say above) you're not sure of their final decision. You should prove them the reliability of the source and perhaps provide a scan of the article as from what I understand they don't accept it as reliable, otherwise we might start having people here claiming all sorts of figures they've once read somewhere. --Harout72 (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tupac's Real Numbers?

He's currently listed twice on the page, with neither one having a citation. So, which number is the correct one? TheGoogler (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wei Wei

Reference for Wei Wei [4], someone responsible please add it into the article.

I noticed the article suffered mass vandalism again. I see Pearl Jam has been added to the list, with no reliable reference again (same as many other artists) I suspect Harout72 is at fault again, along with the bully tactics, although I couldn't be bothered checking. 220.253.13.110 (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be careful throwing such an accusation around if I were you since I'm one of the very few people not adding any artists without sources. In fact, since you constantly suffer of accusing users without scrutinizing their motives, perhaps you should then check and see the recent history-summary. As for those artists that you see are left without sources, well, that's because sources for those artists were removed by someone else as they were thought to be unreliable. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Harout72, you have done nothing but destroy this article. Which includes sneakily removing references for certain artists, and continually adding certain musicians with no reliable reference. This is from "carefully inspecting" the history-summary during vandalism issues from last year and many months ago, and when you fanatically tried removing foreign references and artists. Like I said, I can't be bothered checking this time. I provided a solid ENGLISH reference for Wei Wei, so she can't be removed, and that is all I care about. I see artists like Pearl Jam snuck in with the same fake reference you provided last time! Quote: "I'd be careful throwing such an accusation around if I were" Yeah whatever! 220.253.200.249 (talk) 04:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could agree with you, unfortunately, it would simply be a waste of my time to even think about arguing with someone who continuously gets lost within worlds.
P.S.
I happen to be a person providing sources also for foreign artists within this article. --Harout72 (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Oh I see, well that kinda contradicts your viewpoints at the top of this talk page, and your viewpoint relating to foreign references in the archive. In addition to your autocratical editing, and dictating the reliability of references. I think your edit located here [5] is the perfect example. Again attacking Alla and Wei Wei, and adding four artists to the list with no references! 220.253.39.203 (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U2

Wrong information: U2 have sold more than 150 million albums accourding to various relible sources, such as CNN, MTV and the band's website itself. To say that they have sold between 75-99 million albums is completely wrong due to the fact that the article that acts as proof of this claim is 10 years old, written during the Pop Era. Please recitfy.

I updated the sources of U2 with reliable sources.--Harout72 (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Queen

Queen sold more than 300 million almbums and singles worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.250.164.209 (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC) THIS STILL HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED. IT IS CLAIMED THAT 320-500 MILLION HAVE BEEN SOLD IN THE WORLD BY CHANNEL FOUR. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE RECTIFY THIS INFORMATION.[reply]

Proposal

As an artist's total Worldwide sales can never be approximated 100% accurately, and because of this there are often 'edit wars' over which section of this page should be listed in, I think the layout of the list of best-selling fiction authors should be implemented into this list. Not only would this defuse the debates and supposed vandalism which occurs on this list, it would also add a greater validity to the list since multiple sources will be used. Opinions? — Travelling Tragition (Talk) 15:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author of that article, I'm flattered and obviously support this proposal. However, I'm probably not very objective here, so I'll let other people decide... Fram (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of these lists should be on the wikipedia to begin with. 220.253.43.151 (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're entitled to your opinion, but it would be more useful if you gave some arguments. Fram (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" Sure, best of charts, and lists are quite encyclopedic. (notice the sarcasm) This type of article is trivial nonsense, and provides no education value. 220.253.10.5 (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It provides enough education value for news outlets like Fox to report on and compare best-selling artists and albums[6], or to compile lists like ours for the Sydney Morning Herald[7]. The music industry is big business and in the past, record sales were the most important part of it. The best-selling music artists are the power players, the ones with the most "votes" from the public and thus the most weight. It is factual information from reliable sources about a topic that often comes in the media. It has historical value, just like a list of most expensive paintings or a list of largest companies has. A random list, or a list of coincidences (list of songs with four or more "A's" in the title) is trivia without educational value. I don't think this list can be compared to such nonsense. Educational value? When you read in the newspaper or in a press release or whatever about "X, one of the best-selling artists of all time with 3 million records sold", then this list helps you put those figures into perspective. It is a baseline to make comparisons against when an article claims e.g. that Alicia Keys is "one of the best-selling artists of all time"[8]. The purpose of an encyclopedia is that people can check things they read, and this list, while of course incomplete, serves this purpose and is for the moment the best, most comprehensive list of this kind available on the Internet.Fram (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You just wrote a load of rubbish. 220.253.111.6 (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, add Raphael as a best selling artist. He sold more than 50 million records

It is stated here:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael_(cantante)#Disco_de_Uranio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.102.225.176 (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

750 million or over

Ok I have done some research and 3 music artists have sold more then 750, they are the beatles with 750, michael jackson with 750, and elivs. This should added to the list. Also change the 500 million or more to 500-750. This is the truth someone please make this correction as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafichamp (talk • contribs) 05:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, there are many more reliable references that state Michael Jackson hasn't sold more than 500 million, including sources from his record company. 220.253.43.151 (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+ Bing Crosby is second best selling music artist after Elvis(2 billion), Bing has got 600 million - 900 sales, so Don't forget him.

who cares, did you guys read that is say just "500 million records or more " OR MORE FOR CHRIST's SAKE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.102.67.30 (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone tell me where Dolly Parton sold over 100 million records

Dolly Parton does not appear on RIAA's list of best selling artists over 10 million total sales in the USA. She has 6 platinum albums only. Her sales numbers are as inflated as her bra size! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.239.112 (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RIAA certification and total album sales are two completely different numbers. A record label has to pay to get certification. If they don't pay, albums don't get certified. Just because an artist has a low certification from the RIAA, that doesn't reflect their worldwide sales figures. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 02:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]



What about Metallica they've sold 100 millon it says so on their wikipedia page and they are inthe 50 millon to 75 millon page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.239.171 (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is written on their wikipedia page doesn't make it true. Anyone can edit the wikipedia, thus take whatever you read with a grain of salt. 220.253.43.151 (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List record sales by nationality?

I could not find a list of sales by artists' nationality (answering the question "Have the British, per capita, made more records than the French?". I have compiled this list, using the data on this page and List_of_countries_by_population. The first few lines look like this

List of best-selling music nationalities
Artists' Nationality Records sold Population Records per capita
United Kingdom 6,526,000,000 60,975,000 107.0
Ireland 274,000,000 4,422,100 62.0
Austria 382,000,000 8,340,924 45.8
U.S. 13,196,000,000 304,952,000 43.3
Sweden 362,000,000 9,215,021 39.3

Should I add such a table to this page, or create a new page? SmirkingMan 09:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not here, and preferably not on another page either, since this is original research based on limited data. If you can find sources stating the total number of records sold for artists from a country, then you can start on such a page. Basing this solely on the best-selling artists ignores the gigantic number of records sold by successful but not that successful artists. Fram (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you for the advice, taken. That said, such a comparison (after much Googling) doesn't seem to exist, and even if the data I used is patchy, it is the best free data around, and IMHO the results are not entirely void of interest - I personally was surprised to see Ireland and Austria high on the list. Where, would you suggest, should I publish such OR (on my own personal website, obviously, but that's a much harder place to for people to find than the likes of Wickipedia)? Smirkingman (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This will perhaps sound particularly unhelpful, but I have no idea where such info would be most welcome. Such lists are fun and interesting, but I have no idea of a well-known websited dedicated to such stuff (a kind of Wikilists). Perhaps someone else here can help you. Fram (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queen II In the queen article on wikipedia it is claimed that 320 million albums have been sold. in a documentary on channel four (uk) up to 500 million albums sold have been claimed. someone should change this information as 180 mill is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.174.121 (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dalida and Adamo

i'm not a registered user, so I can't edit this article, but i'd like to point out that these singers (Dalida, aka Iolanda Cristina Gigliotti, and Salvatore Adamo) were italians born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.47.116 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time italian singer Mina now got swiss citizenship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.47.116 (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are to mention the country artists represent, and in the case of Adamo for example, he represents Belgium.--Harout72 (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so it's a different policy, on the italian (and french) wikipedia page we refer to the "cultural influence" and the nationals markets involved by the sales of discs. Btw, Dalida nevere represented Egypt, she always sang in italian or french..(as Adamo did, always french or italian)..

Another example would be Enrique Iglesias who was born in Spain, who now represents U.S. As for Dalida, you are right, she should not be listed as an artist of Egypt as it appears that she has begun her career in France and that's where she's been living throughout most of her life. However, I prefer leaving her as it's listed currently (Egypt and France) since it already covers France. --Harout72 (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QUEEN

QUEEN - More than 300 000 000 copies. Where they are?


Tom Jones

Where is Tom Jones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.2.83.55 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

where is iron maiden?

iron maiden used to be in number 51 or above and suddenly they disappeared from the list!what happened and now in number 51 are the "eagles"????even if someone dislikes iron maiden that doesn't mean he/she can erase them from the list! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krem13 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Maiden

Shouldn`t they be in here? They`ve sold somewhere around the 85 million mark... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slaytanic1 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Hendrix

Jimi Hendrix should be on 50 million to 75 million records, with claims of over 50 million; plus the fact that Electric Ladyland, or any number of Jimi Hendrix albums should be in on best-selling albums of all-time page.

About jimi :-

He has sold 22 million albums in america, his labels never got much sales out side, so his sales are like 25 - 30 millon, not more...

Iron Maiden

wikipedia = Shit! Where is Iron Maiden??? over 85 million...

Where Is Tupac?

Tupac shoul deffinitely be on this list with over 75 million albums sold.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists&oldid=242085880"