Talk:List of best-selling music artists

1. All sources must be published by highly Reliable Third Parties

Let me emphasize that we are to accept only highly reliable sources here at List of best-selling music artists (examples of those could be found at the reference section of the page). We've had lots of folks here in the past who have made attempts in adding artists to this page with sources that aren't reliable, and those edits have been quickly reverted. If one is not sure of the reliability of a source which is going to be submitted to support the sales figures of an artist, I suggest that editors discuss that here at the talk page first before proceeding. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not true

(no matter how big you write it)

Sources must conform to exactly the same community-agreed policies that apply to every other article - see the core policy, WP:V.

Editors are encouraged to be bold.  Chzz  ►  00:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not true that sources need to be highly reliable? Do you suggest that we allow editors to support artists' sales figures with official sites or youtube like sources?--Harout72 (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to highlight that this article, like all other articles, is subject to the policies and guidelines that have been agreed through the consensus of the community, and not by any arbitrary rules that may be stated at the top of this talk page. I noted that these purported rules have remained in-place at the top of this page, despite comments by other Wikipedians being archived, and I wanted to make it clear that this was not normal practice.

If you believe that amendments to policy are required, then please propose them in the appropriate places; please don't claim ownership of this article by making your own rules.  Chzz  ►  05:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Don't claim ownership of this article by making your own rules? How dare you even say that to me when all I have done for nearly two years is keep this article as clean as it could have been kept. If we have two different sales figures one claimed by non-prestigious news establishment and the other by a prestigious one, we should accept the figure presented by the latter and that's what I mean with the title of the top section. Unfortunately, we have many editors who can't even distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources; therefore, I feel that it's needed to emphasize what is acceptable. And do you mind explaining what you mean with this statement I noted that these purported rules have remained in-place at the top of this page, despite comments by other Wikipedians being archived, and I wanted to make it clear that this was not normal practice because I am feeling rather insulted for being accused of ownership as nothing of that kind is taking place here.--Harout72 (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I am only too familiar with the problems of editors inability to understand policies and guidelines, and I agree that this is worth emphasizing. My objection is when it is displayed in the top of the talkpage, as I am concerned that newer contributors might misconstrue the message as some kind of 'regulations' regarding this article, rather than a regular talkpage comment (which would be added in a section at the end of the page).

Harout72 asked for explanation of my statement, above; I refer to the fact that the section was added by Harout72 here, on 21 March 2009. Since that date, Harout72 has moved many other comments from this page into archives, most recently creating Archive 10, in which comments up until about 4 September 2009 were archived - but not the entry at the top of the page.  Chzz  ►  04:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, as you have pointed out above, I have archived almost everything except the top section of the talk-page because editors continue to add their favourite artists to the list with unreliable sources. Therefore, I've chosen to leave it at the top just to remind everyone of the reliable sources, nothing else. I am not sure why having it at the top could be viewed as a problem when my intentions are only to have editors insert artists into the article with reliable sources, and I clearly state that above If one is not sure of the reliability of a source which is going to be submitted to support the sales figures of an artist, I suggest that editors discuss that here at the talk page first before proceeding. I'll be very frank, this happens to be a very difficult page to look after, it's a target for both vandals and editors who are not vandals but love seeing their favourite artists at the top of the list, and they submit artists with all kinds of sources which are not even close to being reliable. It's just a reminder, it's not a regulation, not a dictation. But since it's a page that attracts lot of music fans, it's something that informs editors that they should not think they could do with the page whatever they'd like.--Harout72 (talk) 06:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK - maybe we can come to some kind of compromise here, by adding a notice in a standard format, citing policy. Rather like {{calm talk}}. It might even be a useful template for other articles. Let's see;

That's just a rough suggestion; all ideas (pic, wording, colour, bold, links, etc) very welcome.  Chzz  ►  04:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have anything against this, but I'd like to see the points on sources emphasized and re-phrased. Perhaps, something like this:

--Harout72 (talk) 05:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OK - I think we're making good progress here; I understand your ideas, I think; I worry that that notice might be a bit long for the type of people we're aiming this at to notice; it really does need something clear and bold, I agree. Not too sure about the purple (thinking of people with different skins and suchlike; best to keep colours simple and few), and having everything in bold - trouble is, if it's all bold, things don't stand out - in the above, because the link to RS is bolded, it's actually 'anti-bold'; no great objections though. Maybe a bit of <big> might help. Erm...let's see;

For more emphasis, to make it stand out from other boxes, we could consider the border and/or 'roadworks' notice on templates such as "Template:Community article probation";

NOTE: below is here for illustration purposes only

 Chzz  ►  10:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

2. The list requires Highly Reliable Sources and Existing Gold/Platinum Certifications

What the title of this section means is that all artists from now on, besides being supported by highly reliable sources, will also be checked for an existence of Gold/Platinum Certifications. In other words, if an American act such as The Drifters for example, which may be claimed to have sold as many as 300 million records by a single reliable source such as The Times in an article here (for example), but does not have any/enough Gold/Platinum certifications (which would suggest major record sales) in countries like US, UK, Germany, France, Canada, The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Norway Mexico, Brazil etc. will not be allowed to be added to the list regardless of the time period they have begun their careers.

The following are the searchable databases for Silver/Gold/Platinum certifications in:

• USA RIAA
• UK BPI
• Germany IFPI Germany
• France SNEP, also see this
• Canada CRIA
• AustraliaARIA
• The Netherlands NVPI
• Sweden IFPI Sweden
• Switzerland SwissCharts
• Finland IFPI Finland
• Norway Norway
• Mexico Amprofon
• Brazil ABPD

Exceptions: Acts/artists from heavily populated countries like China or India, for example, who have neither appeared on the charts of western/central European countries, Australasia and North America nor gathered certifications in those mentioned territories, and the music industries of which offer no searchable databases will be allowed with highly regarded sources.

Please post your questions and comments within a new section. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Bone Thugs-n-Harmony

I would like to know if this site B.O.N.E has reliable source?--BigBossBlues (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid it's not. Please look at our reference sections here to see what kind of sources we have so far accepted. Such examples would be CNN, BBC, FOX News etc..--Harout72 (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK what about this one New Times--BigBossBlues (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but as I mentioned above, the articles must come either from highly regarded news services or highly regarded music related sources such as MTV, VH1, articles published by major record companies such as Sony Music or Universal Music are acceptable as well.--Harout72 (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Did Bob Marley sold over 300 million albums? No, he didn't.

The sales figure for Bob Marley is highly inflated. Some certifications for Bob Marley in the biggest music industries:

US = 16,5 million

UK = 1,8 million

Canada = 850.000

France = 6.633.500

Germany = 1.500.000

..... = maybe in total 100 million albums

How much did he sold in Africa? China? Japan? More than 200 million? I don't think so.

Is it possible to put Bob Marley in the 200 million category? I think it's more realistic.Christo jones (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This fansite or official site says that Marley sold over 50 million albums! Fansites are not reliable, but why do they mention 50 million? [1]

Other source says 50 million [2]

This source says 250 million [3]

Maybe we can hold it on 300 million? Christo jones (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I too believe that the figure is inflated and it's not supposed to be more than 100-120 million records, but the sources you are providing are not reliable and official sites are not considered third party sources. If no other reliable sources are located for Marley in the near future with figures close to his actual sales (as his certifications suggest), I may simply remove him from the list altogether.--Harout72 (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC

bob marley made over 60 albumm excluding his solo sales. alot of them had a high number of sales and some sold over 10 million. he shold go back to 300 illion sales —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.10.38 (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC) Your source says bob marlay and THE WAILERs sold 250 million albums.

Iron Maiden Official sales Figures

The Official Iron Maiden website states they have sold 75 mln copies, source: but this is the representative for sources of EMI Label Distribution & Purchasting. Total record sales of IRON MAIDEN is estmated as 100 mln source: http://www.soundunwound.com/sp/contributor/view/Iron+Maiden?contributorId=6850&ref=AADP many other sources say like that. If you could be accurant and believeable, submit these datas and rearrange Maiden's position in Bestselling artists ranking poll. MAIDEN FANS Community shall be grateful . Check this out and be quick.

Sure, I will be as quick as I possibly can. No reliable sources provided above. --Harout72 (talk) 02:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

-- Yes, i think it should be edited. Saw in a news channel in my country that was presenting a documentary about famous and best selling heavy metal artists, and when they talked about Iron Maiden they said they had sold around 70 millon albums for the EMI, but the reality was in total they sold more than 100 million. I couldn't get it on tape, but if i find a footage of it ill post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameskp13 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tom Jones

This article says that Tom Jones has sold 100 million records. Can someone add him to the list?75.142.54.211 (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"Page not found" - the link is dead. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I found another source [4] 75.142.54.211 (talk) 19:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not really a highly reliable source. Jones does not seem to have gathered that many certifications around the world. In other words, the number of his certifications doesn't suggest a figure as large as 100 million records. I would have to wait for the UK's searchable database for certifications to be back online, not to mention that Jones would need a highly reliable source, one such as CNN or Fox News etc..--Harout72 (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Eddy Arnold should be removed from the top selling artists.

The notion that Eddy Arnold sold 85 million albums is problematic for a number of reasons, thus his removal from the list is necessary... 1) Despite his success in the fifties and sixties, he only scored one double platinum album in the U.S. (2 million) and two gold albums (combined 1 million), for 3 million in certifiable solo artist sales (see www.riaa.com). Granted, lower level certifications for albums selling less than 500,000 units will not be indexed by the RIAA searchable database. With that said, the RIAA does not recognize Eddy Arnold as one of the top 100 selling artists in the U.S., meaning that he sold well under 10 million units (including non-certified albums and singles) in the U.S., possibly only 3 million units total. 2) The lack of record sales in the U.S. means that he must have sold 70 to 82 million albums in other markets. However, this is very unlikely since his recordings were promoted in the genre of country music, which was not heavily promoted in foreign markets in the 50's through 70's. To achieve the 85 million in sales he would need extremely strong sales in foreign markets, which he does not have, according foreign sales databases. In addition, I could find no records of his solo artist singles charting in markets outside of the U.S. (and his singles were primarily charted as country hits, with a few exceptions). 3) To account for the credited 85 million in sales reported in his billboard.com biography, the only plausible explanation is that the reported sales figures include his production, songwriting, session performances, and other credits on releases outside of his solo work (AKA: his involvement with other recording artists). His achievements as an artist, producer, songwriter, and musician are laudable; however, he should not be listed as one of the world’s best selling artists. In fact, his personal "artist" sales should be considered moderate at best and nowhere near "best-selling" of all time. Thus, Eddy Arnold must be removed unless starts including songwriters, producers, and session musicians. For example, if Eddy Arnold is allowed to be included, so should famous producer Bob Rock. As a producer, engineer, and songwriter Bob Rock boasts sales close to 200 million. However, Bob Rock is not Motley Crue or Metallica, the actual “selling” artists. Continuing with this logic, Steve Lukather from Toto should be considered one of the best selling artists of all time because of his session work on Michael Jackson's "Thriller." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkdoc5150 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Bette Midler

The Bette Midler Wikipedia page claims she sold over 100 million records. Shouldn't she be on here? 173.88.94.212 (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The figure of 100 million at her page was not referenced. I have already removed the figure from her page.--Harout72 (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Diana Ross

This article [5] says that Diana Ross has sold more than 100 million records. Does it mean her solo career or her entire career, including her work with the Supremes?75.142.54.211 (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked to see what her actual sales looks like in different territories, and it shows that she has sold some 11 million records in US, some 600,000 in Canada, she has sold only 100,000 in France, only 80,000 in the Netherlands. She does not seem to have certifications in most of the countries including Germany, Austria, Brazil, Mexico, Norway. All in all, her actual sales does clearly show that she could not have sold as many as 100 million records. My estimation for Ross would be 50 million in the best case scenario. We really should not add her to the list with the source you are providing above. I would, however, consider adding her to the list if you could locate another reliable source which claims a figure around the 50 million.--Harout72 (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Diana Ross is estimated to have sold close to if not more than 200 million records worldwide. [6] please update the list to reflect this.Rosslad (talk) 10:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't accept sources of that kind at this page. I have gone over Diana Ross' certifications using the databases of all markets available, and the combination of all her certification indicate that her record-sales couldn't even come close to 100 million.--Harout72 (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Don Cornell

Don Cornell has sold 50 million records according to LA Times[7]75.142.54.211 (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Cornell has no chance of being added to this list regardless of what figure LA Times claims, I'm afraid, as he doesn't have a single certification in US nor anywhere else. --Harout72 (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Three Dog Night

I doubt this source is reliable, but I just wanted to check with you.[8]75.142.54.211 (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

It's really not. Perhaps, they could use a source of this kind at other wiki pages to support statements, and it should be OK as long they don't support a significant statement with it.--Harout72 (talk) 21:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Prince has sold over 80 million records

I always recall Prince being listed with 50 million records. But he has seemed to disappear from the list.

He's released over 30 albums in his lifetime. Purple Rain alone is 22x platinum.

If you add the Platinum/Gold/silver certifications listed and cited in his Discography article, you get 82+ million

1979 - Prince - 1.25 Million 1980 - Dirty Mind - 1 Million 1981 - Controversy - 1 million 1982 - 1999 - 6 million 1984 - Purple Rain - 22 million 1985 - Around the world in a day - 3 million 1986 - Parade - 2 million 1987 - Sign O the times - 8 million 1988 - Lovesexy - 2 million 1989 - Batman - 2 million 1990 - Grafitti Bridge - 1.5 million 1991 - Diamonds & Pearls - 9 million 1992 - Love Symbol - 3 million 1993 - The Hits/B-Sides - 1.5 million 1994 - Come - 1 million 1995 - The Gold Experience - 1.5 million 1996 - Emancipation - 3 million 1999 - Rave un2 the joy fantastic - 1 million 2001 - The Very Best of Prince - 2.5 million 2004 - Musicology - 4 million 2006 - 3121 - 2 million 2007 - Planet Earth - 2.8 million 2009 - Lotusflow3r - 1 million

= 82 Million (and thats JUST US, UK, and Canada)

It seems that no reliable source could be found, so it was removed. You're figures are valid - but you need a source claiming the overall figure of 80 million too. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

How about using math or did you fail at it?70.153.241.22 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not attack editors with comments like that, none of the provided figures above are referenced. Besides, I have already discussed this in previous discussions, the link of that discussion has been provided above.--Harout72 (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is what Prince's figures look like in the following countries:

• US: 50 million
• UK: 6 million
• Germany: 1.7 million
• France: 1.6 million
• Canada: 1 million
• The Netherlands: 465,000

So 82 million for US and Canada is about 15-20 million exaggerated. Prince's worldwide total should not go any farther than 80-90 million.--Harout72 (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oasis

Apparently now the tally is over 70 million! obviously we can't edit it now but whoever can should make the change ASAP! Hope these are eligible! References: [9] [10] [11] --Tukogbani (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Only the second one of all three sources are weakly reliable which still doesn't qualify for this page and the other two are not reliable whatsoever.--Harout72 (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain Harout? I'm a little confused --Tukogbani (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles must be published by highly reliable sources, refer to the reference section please here. This here is what BBC pages look like. The first one of your sources is not a BBC page as I know some people get deceived by the its logo. By the way, we have Oasis with a 50 million claim by Washington Post, the article is from December 2008. Have they sold another 20 million over a period of 18 months?--Harout72 (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I sure as hell doubt it --Tukogbani (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, whoever keeps changing the tally back to 50 million, dont. I have found a very raputable source here , the guardian, a very respected newspaper, which has stated that Oasis have sold 70 MILLION records worldwide, thats right in the top of this article it says to include albums AND singles, dvds, videos etc. 50 million is the album tally as stated by washington post, if you include all of the singles oasis have sold worldwide, especially of 'wonderwall' you'll find that it will round up to sales of close to 70 million. I have UK and RIAA sales certifications to back this up. Here is the source for 70 million. [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 09:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mewerlack is entirely correct here. Let's break this down - 1. The Guardian is considerably more reliable that The Washington Post. 2. There are 2 sources backing up the 70 million claim, compared to 1 opposing it. 3. These sources are including album, single and DVD sales as we are SUPPOSED to. The Washington Post source only includes album sales. 4. The Washington Post is about a year and a half out of date.

Fact is, Oasis have sales at the 70 million mark. The article WILL have to be amended to show this - I will make sure of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.234.6 (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the "how can they have sold 20 million in 18 months" argument. They haven't - it's just The Washington Post are only including albums, and so have reported a figure lower than what it actually is. Sources have been reporting over 60 million sales for over 2 years now; the only reason they haven't been included seems to be because they aren't newspapers.

This article is such a mess because of thinking like this. Time to improve it, starting with quoting Oasis' ACTUAL sales figures of 70 million.

The Guardian, The Belfast Telegraph, BBC, NME and numerous other sources refute the low claim stated by the Washington Post a year and a half ago. Time to amend the article. By the way, that BBC link provided IS real. It actually IS on the BBC site and oncee again, the BBC are more reliable than the Washington Post. you seem to have mistakenly assumed that BBC news is the only BBC website - it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.234.6 (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the article by Washington Post that currently supports Oasis on the list, and it clearly states 50 million records not albums as stated by user Mewerlack above. I understand that there are sources which claim 70 million and there are also sources claiming the 50 million figure. In this case, not only Washington Post is more preferable because it's more reliable than Belfast Telegraph but also the figure stated by Washington Post is close to what the certifications gathered by Oasis suggest. It should be noted that the sales of Oasis hasn't been astronomical outside of UK, this is what their sales looks like in the following markets according to certifications:

• US market: 7.5 million (singles, albums, videos combined)
• UK market: 17.5 million (Albums, singles and DVDs combined)
• German market: 500,000
• French market: 700,000
• Canadian market: 1.3 million
• Australian market: 580,000
• Swedish market: 300,000

There are no major sales in The Netherlands [13], no major sales in Austria [14], no major sales in Finland [15], no major sales in Switzerland [16], no major sales in Brazil [17], no major sales in Mexico [18], no major sales in Argentina [19]. All in all, their worldwide should not surpass 50 million maximum.

As for the BBC source above which claims 70 million records worldwide, I hate to say it but it's not a BBC page, it should not be confused with BBC only because it carries BBC logo. This is what a BBC page should look like here. --Harout72 (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The BBC source doesnt just suggest that oasis have sold 70 million records, it adds more verifibility by stating this true 'as of June 2009'. This suggests that the BBC obviously have a very reliable and accurate source pinpointing by june 2009, that they had sold this amout. Also, platinum and gold certifications only tally sales when they reach a specific checkpoint, for example every 500,000 sales or so, leaving many remaining sales rounding off in limbo; not producing an accurate description. And as for South American sales, im pretty sure Oasis have sold very strongly in argentina and brazil considering the amount of tickets they sold there on their latest tour, it seems that becuase sales in those kind of countries are very inaccurate that there arent any verifiable figures. This doesnt mean it has not sold well there. Im not trying to produce a biased few here either; i am not a fan of Oasis, I just think that its been widely known over the years that Oasis have sold more than their counterparts like the Chili peppers and Linkin Park etc., so it would be silly to place them on the same level just because you cant find enough sales accredations. I think that two claims by two highly respectable (government funded) sources should be enough. Surely UK newspapers would have more knowledge on a UK band than a US one would? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 06:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The washington post article looks a lot more sketchy and unverefiable than the BBC or guardian ones do. The Post article doesnt even have a full knowlegde of Oasis focusing more on the brotherly tensions than the sales of the music itself. One more thing, surely theyve sold 70 million if the band's homepage on wikipedia even states this and it has for months now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 06:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Which part do you not understand Mewerlack? It is not a BBC page, it is a wikipedia mirror page. Read what it says at the bottom of that page. And please don't replace the Washington Post with Belfast Telegraph as the latter is not more reliable. As for the certifications coming from the databases, they are a very reliable source of information to rely upon as far as sales figures are considered. --Harout72 (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, stop being so ignorant, im not talking about the BBC page; it's 'THE GUARDIAN' (not belfast telegraph, i never mentioned that)a UK paper referencing a UK band with a much more-hands on account on the band. If you actually READ the washington post article youll realise it doesnt sound like a very reliable source. And yes, The guardian (a lbig UK paper) is MUCH more reliable than some small inland US paper. I mean cmon, what US paper would know anything about Oasis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 08:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have found yet another source.[20] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mewerlack (talk • contribs) 09:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Washington Post is a highly regarded news service. Since the figure presented by Washington Post is closer to what the sum of certifications suggest, I'd sat Washington Post, in this case, happens to have done their research more meticulously than any of the sources that claim 70 million for Oasis. By the way, you have never at any point during this discussion provided an article by The Guardian (not that it would be more reliable in comparison with Washington Post). As for your latest source, we don't accept here at this page sources of that kind. --Harout72 (talk) 15:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually harout, The Guardian IS more reliable than The Washington Post. The Guadian is among the most respected newspapers in the world, consdiderably moreso than The Washington Post. Not only that but it's considerably more recent.

I will remind you that doing your own research is NOT permitted on wikipedia. So no, your method is wholly unreliable, not least because you missed out many major markets and simply dismissed sales in certain countries as "minimal". That is not a reliable way of doing things and therefore that entire method can be forgotten.

And I would like to know why NME would not be a reliable source. We should not only be including newspapers on here - magazines like NME ARE reliable sources in this context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseNinja1 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

WiseNinja1, you happen to be the second person mentioning about an article by The Guardian, whereas both you and Mewerlack have failed to provide the article by The Guardian that you are speaking of. Yes, The Guardian is among the most respected news papers; however, Washington Post is not less reliable as you are suggesting. As for the Certification databases, I see you have stated above that I have missed some major markets, besides the Japanese market which currently doesn't offer a searchable database for certifications, do you mind pointing out what larger markets you're speaking of? In addition, if we have two different figures coming from two different news services, and if there is a way to verify through databases and be able to tell which figure's close to the actual sales, there's nothing wrong with conducting a research of that kind. After all certification databases are reliable sources. With regard to NME, we've had lots of inflated figures in the past coming from similar music magazines; therefore, it's essential to accept highly regarded news services only to avoid exaggerated sales figures.--Harout72 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Moody Blues

Have The Moody Blues sold over 50 million copies of their albums? I did not know for sure so I didn't want to add that information until someone could confirm it. If anyone can confirm it then they ought to be added to the list. :- ) Thanks a bunch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JarOfBuckeyes (talk • contribs) 13:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I had a quick look for this last night, there was a few different claims, but couldn't really find anything definite. I'm guessing you're getting this from their Wikipedia page, don't believe it on merit, it's probably been edited 5 times since the original poster found it in a source (which is no longer there). k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Cash

Johnny Cash has sold over 100 million records according to some sources. Others say over 50 million. I believe if you count Cash's multi-platinum and gold records combined, with all his other albums, it's not hard to believe he is at least in the 75 million range. I think one of the greats of music is being cheated. He was famous all around the world, doesn't anyone know how to count those albums too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.111.111 (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like he's sold some 20 million records in the States (Singles, Albums, Videos combined). In Canada, his sales is just about 500,000 units. No major sales in Germany [21]. No major sales in France either [22]. All in all, I'd say he's looking at 50 million worldwide. Do you have a reliable source claiming a figure like that?--Harout72 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

How could 20 million plus 500,000 plus nothing, ever be 50 million? Can't figure that with my math.

The key statement which you have failed to read above is All in all, I'd say he's looking at 50 million worldwide. It was never stated anywhere above that 20 million plus 500,000 is his worldwide figure. In other words, Cash's total, considering the fact that he hasn't had major sales in the mentioned territories above and considering that his US sales is only 20 million + and some 500,000 in Canada, his worldwide sales figure should not surpass the 50 million and that's exactly what the currently provided source claims. --Harout72 (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Britney Spears

According to her own page on wikipedia Britney Spears, she has sold 83 million, not 80 million. On Spears' page there is two sources of evidence showing that she has deffinitely sold 83 million. Please change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obliteration69 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

change her sales to 83 million http://www.britney.com/us/biography —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britneyspearsforever (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

where is bing crosby?

He has sold until 1980 400 millions albums.http://www.bingcrosby.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ale12341 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The website is probably correct given the length of Bing Crosby's career, unfortunately for him he was mainly active in a period where much of the sales data is now lost, and therefore he hasn't been certified to the levels he should have been, but we also cannot use personal websites as sources as it is seen as publicity and not necessarily a citation of a true figure. It must be certified independently, see RIAA. JFonseka (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

According to Joel Whitburn's "Pop Memories 1890-1954" https://www.recordresearch.com/pop/pop_memories_1890_1954.php and referencing pages 103 thru 113, as well as pages 625-626, Bing's statistics are immense and trackable. The author's credentials are outlined here: https://www.recordresearch.com/about_joel.php. RIAA hasn't certified the last round of Crosby's numbers because of a very long-standing legal dispute between UMG (who owns Bing's entire Decca catalog) and the Crosby estate. It is one of MANY issues central to the lawsuit. Because the pages and statistics are not outlined online, we hope someone from Wiki takes the time to read the pages and certify that the research methods were valid and the numbers stand - and that Bing rightfully takes his place at the top of the list.

Barbra Streisand sold over 140 million, not as stated 70+

due to the fact that this list is based on the world wide sales, Streisand should be listed with 140+ million, not 70, which is what she sold in the US alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.190.252.66 (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right, her worldwide sales is much more than that, I just went over her certifications in various markets, and it looks like she could have sold well over 100m records worldwide. Let me have some time on this to look into it more closely. In the meantime, if you have reliable sources for Streisand claiming higher sales than 75m, please leave them here. But she definitely deserves an update.--Harout72 (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nana Mouskouri sold about 200/250 million records

Dear, Nana Mouskouri did not sold over 300 million records.

• In the US, she has no certifications.
• In France, she sold about 13,5 million records
• In the UK, she has 3 certifications (2x silver, 1 gold)
• In Germany, she has only 6 golden records.

She sold maybe a lot of records in Asia and Japan, but surely not over 150 million in these countries. So, the sales figure for Mouskouri of 200 million records worldwide seems more realistic. Some reliable sources claim that she sold over 200 million records in 2001. In the last ten years she did not sold another 100 million records.

Some sources claiming that she sold 200-250 million records:

• http://www.rfimusique.com/siteEn/biographie/biographie_6044.asp
• http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat?pubdate=2001/03/06
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2658743.stm
• http://www.theage.com.au/news/music/shy-and-retiring/2005/08/25/1124562976353.html
• http://artists.universal-music.de/nanamouskouri/html/bio/bio_fr.html

On March 26, 2006, an anonymous editor changed her sales figure on her Wikipedia-article from 190 to 300 million without any source until June 2006. That's more than three years ago!! (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nana_Mouskouri&diff=45263161&oldid=45203036). So, I think that explains why a lot of sources claim that she has sold 300 million records. So, is it possible to put her in the 200 million + category? Thanks!Christo jones (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

When calculating figures of an artist like Nana Mouskouri, one needs to look at the year she has launched her career, it's 1958. Whereas most of the music markets began issuing certifications after 1973 or 1975 including the German market, where she has sold some 1.5 million records according to her certifications; therefore, we have no way of tracking most of Mouskouri's records which have been released and sold before mid 1970s.

Where are you getting the 13.5 million for the French market? I see only some 2.2 million albums in certified sales here.

By the way, in Canada, she has over 1 million units in certified sales, here.

The 300 million is a huge number, and we should have seen at least 10-15 million coming out of the French market, if that was the case. As for the Asian markets, I doubt she could have sold more than 10-15 million in the entire Asia. In spite of Mouskouri beginning her career as early as 1958, we still should be able to see good 30-40% of her records within databases. Such is not the case though. So the BBS's source, which claims 200 million is more logical than the source we currently have which claims 300 million. We should definitely consider replacing her source once the full-protection lifts off.--Harout72 (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

cat stevens not on list list

cat stevens has sold over 60 million albums worldwide but i don't see him on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4912360ab (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I am looking into this now, he has had substantial sales worlwide I'm sure, but whether it's enough to get into the list, we shall find out. JFonseka (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a quick look into Cat Stevens' certified sales (re-edited)

RIAA AMERICA - 15.6 million BPI BRITAIN - 1.2 million taking into considering past certification scheme GERMANY - 2.75 million using past certification scheme FRANCE - 600,000 CANADA - 250,000

Calculating his total sales from these 5 figures alone it's about 20 million. However I haven't checked all the databases, and the UK database looks very incomplete, and it probably is since many other artists are also returning very incomplete figures, also much of the last certification dates were over 30 years ago. It doesn't look like Cat Steven has sold 50 million records at this stage at all, he'd be around the 30 - 35 million mark. Though if you find a reliable news source that indicates 50m+ for now, I will put it up temporarily since a lot of other artists haven't been scrutinized in detail yet and to keep the list consistent until further details are done for everyone. Thanks to Harout for pointing out my mistakes in calculating Stevens' figures. JFonseka (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

where is cliff richards?

he should be in the list .he sold 260 millions worldwide.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_RichardAle12341 (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Cliff Richard has been removed from the list, he was supported with that very source you're providing above. Richard does not seem to have sold more than 50 million records worldwide.

• UK sales 10.4 million records

• US sales 500,000

• German sales 250,000

• Canadian sales 200,000

• Dutch sales 80,000

• Finnish sales 25,000

• Norwegian sales 40,000

He has not had major sales in most countries including Switzerland, Austria, Brazil, Mexico, Argentina etc..

If there is reliable source; however, claiming that Richard has sold 50 million records which is where his actual record sales should stand, then I'll add him back to the list with that source. I can't put him back on the list with a source which claims that Richard has sold 250 million records. That's an impossible figure for him. --Harout72 (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Cliff Richard is another artist where cerditations are suspect. He began his chart success in April 1959, spent 14 weeks no.1 in 1963, yet gained first creditation in 1976. According to the British Charts Company, he is the biggest singles seller ever in the UK with 21 million in sales, and his sales are also exclusive of his time with the Shadows, and his hit with The Young Ones - so as a person, overall he may have sold that amount, but as a solo artist - probably not (speculation only, not stating a fact). Eight88 (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2009 (UT

In response to Harout - it seems that you're replacing a highly reliable source from the highly reliable newspaper The Times with your own personal research.

Sorry, but that is simply not allowed. That goes against wikipedia regulations I'm afraid. The Times is a reliable source and until you can provide a reliable source disproving the claim, Cliff Richard will have to be reinstated. (your own research is not permitted nor is it acceptable). Once I've made the 10 edits required for a new user to edit a locked article, I shall correct this mistake. WiseNinja1 (talk) 14:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Certification databases are reliable, and I don't replace highly reliable sources with my own research, I simply verify the published figures. And 10 million in UK certified sales is not enough to suggest that 250 million claimed by The Times is correct, whereas Richard's sales is quite poor everywhere else in the world including the US market.--Harout72 (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

We're only supposed to state what we can verify in reliable sources. The Times is a reliable source - adding up certifications from a handful of countries is classed as personal research however, and cannot be used. Therefore, unless you can provide another reliable source claiming a lower figure, Cliff Richards MUST be reinstated near the top of this list. WiseNinja1 (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that I am trying to come up with a total figure when I verify published figures through databases? 250 million units cannot be achieved by UK market alone regardless of how popular he's been in that market; in fact 10 million in certified sales doesn't suggest major popularity. A figure such as 250 million could only be accomplished by the support of many larger markets and I don't see any significant amount of sales coming from anywhere for Richard. There always are sources claiming outrageous figures for different artists, that doesn't mean we should accept them and fill this page with inflated claimed figures, believe me, that's the easiest thing to do here. By the way, looking at Richard's chart positions here, it's quite apparent that his target market has always been the UK. Had Richard charted and sold well elsewhere, we would have seen certifications coming from all of the larger and smaller markets, which is not the case. Having said that, it is essential to recognize that the 250 million has simply been used as a promotional tool possibly to promote his upcoming material at the time.--Harout72 (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Very Wrong Sales Figures

I viewed this page, and found it's very superficial when it's about Elvis and Michael jackson' sales.

About Elvis sales, why you guys tries to found a page where you can see lowest estimates of Elvis' sales without knowing what is actually written on it?? The actual sentence from that source what you have supplied for "300 million" sales is:-

"Elvis sold 300million records during his lifetime but became a victim of his own success." Means Elvis had sold 300 million when he was living, So are you guys posting up "1954 - 1977" sales estimates of Elvis?

Elvis has probably sold over 2 billion according to few estimates. Here are few sources:-

http://www.theenglishmall.com/bios/index.php?bio=elvis-presley

http://www.sunstarstudios.com/elvis2.html

Michael's sales are 750 million Units, means not just albums also singles, lps, etc. And the total album sales are 350 million, Guinness had estimated 47 million, And there are 10 albums of michael jackson, doesn't it means each has sold 75 million.

Please correct both, or just put the 1 week older page.

Also Led Zeppelin has sold 300 million officially long before, they have got 111.5 million certified sales only in US.

Few sources:-

www.myspace.com/ledzeppelin

http://www.ez-tracks.com/showArtists-OrigArtist-Led%20Zeppelin.html

http://www.ledzeppelinstuff.com/

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5igHDdkpddjogzt2A9OP68elQIoqw

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledzeppblackdog (talk • contribs) 05:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you had paid attention to what was said, the figures for The Beatles, Elvis and Michael Jackson are based on certified sales and claimed sales. Claimed sales are not necessarily wrong, in fact they maybe the true representation of the what the artists' sales are, but unfortunately, not every country has a certification system, and even fewer have an easily accessible database to verify this. Hence two sections have been given, one is the official certification system and the other is the claimed section. We cannot accept links to information by the band/artist's website or other questionable sources, it should be highly reliable and also independent. Industry certifications are reliable to some degree as they given a breakdown without just stating random figures, they are also frequently updated. Elvis selling 2 billion records is a ridiculously inflated figure. It is unlikely that Elvis and The Beatles and MJ altogether have reached 2 billion in sales, let alone Elvis. JFonseka (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

But the sales figures of you guys are wrong, because you have based it on site source without even knowing what is actually written in that source, like it was written in one page that "Elvis sold 300million records during his lifetime" But you guys started treating that sentence like it is about his all time sales, Where it's about only of the time 1954 - 1977, means when he was alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledzeppblackdog (talk • contribs) 06:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

They are not our sales figures, the sales figures are of various countries' certification systems. I am not quite sure what you mean about the rest of your complaint, this isn't exactly an administration, and I'm not sure who "you guys" are, there are just various editors here and we don't always agree with each other either, however any debate with the actual certification should be taken up with the relevant certifying board, the certified sales are the best shot we have at some accuracy and relevancy, with additional figures from claimed sources to give the reader balanced information, with footnotes to indicate certified sales may not be complete. JFonseka (talk) 12:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice talking with you.

Ledzeppblackdog, if you are referring to this article by Daily Record, then you should also pay attention at the date of the article. The news services and record companies are having a hard time publishing correct figures of present-time artists as it is, what makes you now believe they're able to track record-sales that has taken place before '77? I highly doubt Presley could have sold over 300 million records before his death. It's just the choice of their wording that makes you confused, it's very much like when some news services sometimes use "albums" instead of "records", whereas they all mean the same thing "records" (albums, singles) regardless of the choice of their words. --Harout72 (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

But when it's already proved before, that Elvis has roughly got 400 million in USA, then how can you even believe on that kind of source? 2nd, It's written that "Elvis sold 300million records during his lifetime" means they are talking about 1954 - 1977, And you are correct, that how a news source can track sales before 77, but the words they have wrote tells that they are talking about before 77.

In fact, Elvis had sold over 600 million in his lifetime(1954 - 1977), Few sources:-

http://www.javno.com/en-bestseller/31st-anniversary-of-elvis-presleys-death_172727

http://www.flixster.com/actor/elvis-presley

It' been proven that Presley has sold 400 million records in US? Go the list and look at the total figure that Presley's US certifications represent, that's 174 million (singles, albums, videos combined), and that my friend would be roughly 200 million not 400. Above, you are providing sources which claim that Presley has sold 2 billion records none of which, by the way, is reliable. And now you are providing another set of sources (immediately above) both of which claim 600 million. Which one do you think is correct? There seems to be a huge gap between 2 billion and 600 million, don't you think?--Harout72 (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That's why i said that your figures are wrong, Elvis has 174 million certified singles+albums+ etc in US? Funny, because RIAA's official site says that Elvis has 93 million certified singles, and 120 million certified album sales, it's makes 213 million certified sales in US only! and 174 million figure of yours is from a fan site which, which was written in 2000 like 9 years ago regarding albums.

Please, check about Elvis, Led zeppelin sales again, and the sources what i have given are certainly much reliable then those what editor has put on main page.

First of all, I never go to fan sites. 174 is based on what RIIA has here for Elvis. I see the 120 for album sales, but where does RIAA mention anything about 93 million singles? And remember to sign after your comments.--Harout72 (talk) 05:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

about michael jackson

I read a older verison of his wikipedia page it says he sold 750 million units worldwide not records or albums [23] this includes videograph[24] , Studio albums ,Compilations, and other types of albums [25] and singles [26]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 11:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

These sales figure need to lowered

ABBA sold 300 million records woldwide not 370 million [27] [28] [29]

Nana Mouskouri sold 200 million [30] [31] [32] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 15:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder, sources we accept here must be highly reliable, and at least one of them is not for Nana Mouskouri. I have to say that most of your sources above are useful. I would also very much like to see you stop believing in Jackson's 750 million. In other words, don't believe everything you read. Cheers.--Harout72 (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

i get you point about how record companies can lie about sales for music artits

but dont you think 370 million figure for abba is wrong beacuase the two article which back up my claim they sold 300 million is from 1999(mtv) and 2003 (cnn) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

also this article from 2001 claims they sold 300 million [33] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Cliffrichard, I don't mean to make this sound arrogant but in order for me to know artists' actual sales, I don't need to read and believe what any news services publish, I do my own research through the help of certification-databases. You really want to know my opinion on where ABBA's, Michael Jackson's, or even Nana Mouskouri's sales stand? ABBA=100-150million, Michael Jackson=200-250 million (shocking huh?), Nana Mouskouri=100-120 million. But I don't have the time nor the energy to argue with these artists' fans here, therefore, I constructed the tables. And any intelligent person seeing the the huge difference between the figures the certifications represent and the figures claimed by news services, will immediately understand that claimed figures have simply been tossed about as marketing tools by artists' record companies. I may construct a table for ABBA as well as for Queen in the near future and we'll include both claimed figures for ABBA 300 million and 370 million.--Harout72 (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

harout72 im actually agreeing with you about the figures you are giving but cant we do the same table for queen and abba as we done for the beatles,elvis and michael jackson

and one more point i am not a michael jackson fan beacuse of his record sales i am a fan of his because of his music i know you might not like him beaucse this is the comments you give him have some respect :

It all probably began because SONY thought using a figure as outrageous as the 750m would be an appealing marketing tool to bring Jackson's lost fame back

Although most of these figures come fom the Record Companies, you have to realise that of all groups, they and the actual artists will probably be the only ones who know for sure. That is because both receive royalties from sales figures. To say they exaggerate is speculation and yet to be proven. The 370 million figure for ABBA originated from Universal's audit in April 2006, announcing global sales of 360 million up till 2004, and others keep adjusting it upwards up to probable sales to 2009. Noting this is NOT just album sales, but record sales. During their peak, they were selling 4 x their volume in singles sales compared to album sales. After 1982, majority album sales and the odd re-release of singles (as well as box sets containing all their singles in vinyl or CD format, so 1 sale would equate to 29 units sold.) Eight88 (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This is supposed to be encyclopedic

The current editing and logic behind the edits has began to move away from wiki standards. You should not have "we" in the main article. Nor should it list "some" countries certifications, and say all available certifications. You should use verified sources from publications - I gave one to assist, and has been completely removed. Large selling artists like Bing Crosby removed - makes the list a fiasco. And although the sales assist in making the article more knowledable, it does NOT prove or disprove and artists global sales. It is as logical as looking at the horizon and saying the world is flat. Unless you have all the countries, all the albums/singles released from beginning to end, know the variations from what counts as a unit sale (boxsets, digital, re-releases etc ..) then you are only viewing a very limited selection of data and trying to imply it as an overall fact. And some of the information is being twisted. For example, WSJ article stated several artists have sold xxx million albums. This is "albums", not records. Also, Artists who have either died, retired, or broke up have continually sold, have continually released new compilations (that will sell in reasonable numbers, but never certify), and will be in bargin bins in the Walmart equivalents across the globe. Artists like Elvis, The Beatles, ABBA, continually sell 2-3 million per annum, and since the 80's, that equates to 60-90 million in itself. And this bantering and conjecture on who has sold what - it is excessivily biased. It is an article, treat ALL artists equally, and if verifiable sources are given - use them, it is not a pick and chose process to try and make it meet the opinions of the editors. Eight88 (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

after several days "we" still exists, Bing Crosby is still off the list, and verifies sources have less value than editors "opinions" Eight88 (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to criticize the article, please read it more closely. It nowhere within the table nor within the footnotes mentions anything about "all certifications from all markets", instead it reads "Total Certified Sales From Available Markets". The fact that Crosby is not on the list along with some others whose claimed figures cannot be verified because no major actual sales exists, does not make the list bad.

You had provided a source which claimed that Crosby has sold 500 million records. Even though, Crosby has begun his career very early for most countries' certification-databases to catch his materials, RIAA which has established it's certification-based market in '58, has only captured a few of Crosby's records, although I see in Crosby's discography here that only 9 albums have been released before 1957 (and the 80% is released afterwards). Had any of Crosby's records sold over 500,000 units after '57, RIAA would have listed them in their database. Instead, I'm only seeing 6.5 million records in certified sales. Elvis Presley is a very early beginner also (first studio album in 1956), and RIAA has captured most if not all of his records (174 million singles, albums, videos combined). Above you're stating Also, Artists who have either died, retired, or broke up have continually sold, have continually released new compilations (that will sell in reasonable numbers, but never certify), and will be in bargin bins in the Walmart equivalents across the globe. If you look at Presley's certifications in RIAA's database, you will notice that most of his certified records are from after his death (1977). In other words, all records (especially released in US after 1957) whether during artists' careers or posthumously, they all eventually become visible in the databases if they reach or have reached the gold (500,000 in US) status. There is no reason for well selling records not to be certified.--Harout72 (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, looking at selection of data does not mean it is complete. Bring Crosby: began recording in 1926 and had 22 million+ sellers before 1946. Where is this in the discography link supplied? He released 2,600 recordings over his career - also missing. He sold 30 million singles for White Chtistmas alone, and 6-7 for Silent Night - also missing. You cannot use RIAA as a baseline for total sales, only as a reference to certifications that were achieved. If a reference is provided - use it. Elvis Presley - another prolific release list, and majority not certified, that does not mean they didn't sell, only means they sold below 500,000. That is up to 800 releases unaccounted for by RIAA and globally, AND as stated previously, this does not even take into account catalogue sales. I also repeat (and amend into your own words), "total sales from AVAILABLE markets, but it is effectivly a cross section from SOME markets, or specifically those who have it online. Online does not equal availability. Prime example of this is Nielsen Soundscan (those they report sales not certifications). Also, at one stage, I believe someone assessed that certifications are given retrospectivly - again this is not the case. A good example of this is ABBA:The Album and BPI - certified 1 x Platinum = 300,000 sales, but sold over 1,000,000. There are tremendous variations in actual sales vs certifications. And finally a few more references: "Classic Rock Stars: Peter Herring - ISBN 0 86124 179 7 (1983)", "by the time of Elvis's death in 1977, over 480 million copies of his records had been sold". "The Book of Golden Disks: Joseph Murrells - ISBN 0 214 205126 (1975)" - Bing Crosby - "By 1975 his sales were estimated at 400 million". Eight88 (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"Guinness Book of World Records: ISBN 0 85112 070 9 (1999)" - "Most successful Group - The Beatles have sold around 1 billon records and cassettes", "Most sucessful solo Artists: Elvis Presley is first artist reported selling 1 billion records", "Bing Crosby had 299 top 20 entries in the US" Eight88 (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the Article, The Beatles have 7.6 million in crediations in the UK (from BPI), from another source [34] they havs sold 21 millions singles alone. According to another source [35] Sgt Peppers in itself has sold 4.8 million (2nd biggest selling album in the UK). Another example of BPI creditations do not match actual sales. Eight88 (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not suggesting to use the RIAA database as a reference for total sales. But one certainly could get and should be able to get an idea where artists' sales stand by looking at databases. Anyone can argue that their favorite artist has had 2,600 recording over their careers without providing sources. Missing or doesn't exist? And what makes you think that majority Presley's records are not certified. RIAA database includes 13 pages of Presley's certified records, total of 174 million records certified. As for Crosby, you have no proof whatsoever that any of his records other than the ones listed in RIAA database have sold more than 1000 copies regardless of how many papers or magazines have claimed outrageous and spurious figures. I still can't believe, the kind of inflated figures I've seen coming from such highly regarded news papers for some artists.

As for UK's database, I have included a footnote which explains and informs readers of the recent incomplete update which still causes lots of records not appear.--Harout72 (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

They will never appear. It is not that they are missing from the database update, it is that they were never certified. As per ref book mentioned above. Eight88 (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I refer to rely on authenticated well researched publications. I am using "Complete UK Hit Albums: 1956 - 2005: by Graham Betts (in association with UK Charts) ISBN 0 00 720532 5" as a reference for the UK, Joseph Murrell for Global Sales, "The Billbard Book of Number 1 Hits: Fred Bronson ISBN 0 8230 7677 6" for some US detail. I have no favourites as solo/groups - and only trying to get anomolies sorted, and refernces added. To leave one of the biggest selling artists off the list ia a major anomoly. Another link from a source for Bing Crosby [36]. That is two sufficient VR's to have him in at least the 300-400m bracket. Your secondary comment on 'proof' is valid, as nobody has the figures, equally nobody has the data to say RIAA certifications correspond to near actual sales. The only site I have seen is here [

http://www.elvis.com.au/presley/one_billion_record_sales.shtml] for Elvis, but is a fansite, so although showing methodology and sources to accompany the detail - would not meet VR criteria. Agree to disagree, but Bing should be added. Eight88 (talk) 05:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually Eight88 is right in some points here, Bing Crosby has had a tremendous amount of singles sales, however these aren't accounted for anymore, as to the exact reason it's unclear, whether it's lost sales data or incomplete submission I'm not sure, but a lot of dead artists do not get certified because it costs an incredibly large amount of money to get them certified, and unless companies see financial gain to certify them the relevant governing certifying industries will not certify them. As far as I'm aware, Elvis was not even on the RIAA list or anywhere in the top 10 until 1992 when he had 110 certifications done in one go, this was because RCA Victor had kept close to nothing in terms of his sales data, and the Elvis Presley Enterprises discovered Colonel Parker his manager had kept a much better record of his national and international sales, which the RIAA then audited, it's an excellent example. Some of his sales data is also reported to be missing for the '70 - '72 period and right after his death. If it can happen to someone of Elvis' calibre, it sure can happen to pretty much any other artist.

Furthermore retro-active certification has to be requested for sales prior to 1958, this is again a request, and not something automatically done, it's guaranteed most artists from the 50's period have had absolutely no retro-active certifications

An artist selling x amount does not mean they will get certified for that at all, it has to be requested, furthermore, there are multiple issues, the RIAA only accepts certain details regarding shipment figures, IRS tax audits, royalty figures, and other data which might be of use is not necessarily accepted. I see no reason why Bing Crosby would have sold as low as he is actually certified as, 'White Christmas' was an incredibly popular Christmas single, especially so for 40's and 50's America which was extremely Christian, single sales of this particular hit was reported well over 10 - 15 million, but sales data seems to be lacking, particularly because the RIAA did not exist, and certifications back then were done in-house, which means RCA would have awarded him the necessary royalties as well as the sales attribution, but when the RIAA came into existence, either the sales data did not exist or the industry took a different approach to acceptable data and therefore was not accepted before. White Christmas is not even listed on the RIAA database as a certified single, however there has been a lot of talk about these sales, and it's ridiculous to think that because it's not certified that this once extraordinary single has not even sold 500,000 copies.

Another incredibly popular artist was Al Jolson, he doesn't appear on the RIAA database at all either. It just wouldn't make sense financially to certify such an artist, who barely sells.

I have documents pertaining to a certain artist who was certified for 1,000,000 by the RIAA but were not paid the relevant royalties by the company, a legal claim was filed but was denied under the basis that it only sold 700,000 units and the other 300,000 were freebies given out, and some were returned. If you wish to see this documentation you may, it's just an example of how things are not exactly clear cut with the RIAA and recording companies. There is a reason for past well selling records not to be certified, it has to be financially viable to do so. Certifiying long dead and non-selling artists in the present day is not in line with a company that aims for profit, the reason Elvis is still looked into is because of his status, unfortunately many other artists do not have such a privilege. JFonseka (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There are other issues not actually listed in the fine print of the RIAA, but the BPI does have it for theirs, there are issues with total album length. If it falls below a certain amount it does note qualify for double sales, I believe Elvis' Aloha double CD is counted as a single sale even though it's 2 discs because the album length falls short of the minimum. Also an album has to be above a certain price, a lot of artists were released under the budget labels such as Pickwick or Camden, back then there wasn't a huge issue with the "best selling artist" as it is nowadays, as long as money was made, and royalties were paid, everyone was happy. The RIAA however like the BPI does not accept sales figures for albums sold below a certain price, there are different categories for singles and albums, the reason could be to prevent re-sales entering the sales data, or to prevent excessive sales from ridiculous priced albums, whatever the case, just because something sells and there is proof does nto mean the RIAA accepts it, it has to fall within certain criteria. A lot of RCA plants closed in the 1980's, along with them went sales data, Elvis and other artists have lost sales figures. I do not entirely understand why a lot has happened as it has, but things aren't as clear, especially dealing with historic data, the market is not the same as it was, and the understanding is also different, also there wasn't as large interest in the biggest selling artist as it is today, sales standards have changed, criteria has been introduced, in recent times SoundScan figures have also come under scrutiny for the dubious methods regarding sales information. Type Associated Content Soundscan into Google and click on the second link. JFonseka (talk) 05:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting assessment, which ties in with details read elsewhere. Eight88 (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Certifications actually don't cost a fortune. In US it costs only $350 to obtain a certification. It must have been much cheaper back when Crosby was around. RIAA was already around when most of Crosby's records had yet to be released. Are we saying that 95% of his records have gone uncertified but we have a reason to believe that he has sold 500 million records? I'd argue exactly the opposite, there is no reason to believe why RIAA would not have certified his records if they reached Gold certification level. I believe they haven't been certified simply because they didn't sell much except for some of his records of course. I'd like to suggest that we search and locate a source that claims a figures somewhere between 100-150 million for Crosby, because it doesn't seem like his actual sales would be more than that. Putting Crosby up there in the list with a source that claims 500 million, would be filling the page with inflated figures. I think we have invested enough time here fighting against overblown numbers. --Harout72 (talk) 05:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Two VR references have been sourced. Too many assumptions and ignoring the facts (as per refernce books mentioned). Eight88 (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra is an early beginner as well just like Bing Crosby, and he seems to have 27 million in certified sales within the RIAA's database. Not to mention that I see notable sales by Sinatra within the databases of other countries including UK, Germany, Canada, France. And those markets have begun issuing certifications much later than US. I see no certifications for Crosby at all in most foreign markets. While Sinatra seems to have more certified sales, he's on the list with a logical sales claim of 150 million.--Harout72 (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

According to what I have read, Frank Sinatra enjoyed two time periods of popularity, with the latter being from 1957 and had first ht in the UK in 1961, hence appears in the selling period of that time in RIAA and BPI. He also has one single on the best selling list (My Way), compared to Bing's 3 (and they are massive sellers in comparison - White Christmas, Silent Night, Jingle Bells), and no albums on the best sellers albums, while Bing had one (from a list in 1975 - J.Murrells) which was 14 million sales at that time. Frank Sinatra released 1000 recordings, Bing Crosby 2,500 recordings. Bing outsold Frank in every way significantly, so another logical explanation as to where Bing's sales belong in comparison. Eight88 (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to claim that Crosby has sold 500 million, that's ridiculously high. People doubt whether Elvis or The Beatles have 500 million each, let alone Bing Crosby, I do not know ball park figures for Crosby, but based on what I've read, his sales are far more than what he is certified for. I agree with Harout in trying to find his true figures, it's definitely not 500 million, that's probably 5 times more than what his actual sales are. Crosby's main sales would have been in the USA and with very little sales in foreign markets and probably none in a lot of countries. He's pretty much a Garth Brooks of the earlier era. JFonseka (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Who has said 500 million? Figures say 300-400 million. Who says he was a small seller globally? His sales were mostly during the war era, so where American soldiers went, so did his sales. Who said VR's should no be used? Nobody, that is what Wikipedia is all about. Who said that wiki editors have a greater understanding of sales compared to prominant authorities on the subject? Nobody. If you do not want to add the detail and VR's, then I will bring in an administrator. Eight88 (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude firstly what is a VR? I don't think it's reasonable to claim massive sales because records went where soldiers went, it's not like the war was based on carrying around 100 million Bing Crosby records into other countries. I myself think that Elvis has sold around the 500 million mark, however this is an encyclopedia and therefore we should only allow highly reliable sources that everyone can access and agree with and can also see the logic behind what is presented. This does not mean other sources are incorrect, but you do realize how ridiculous this looks having Bing Crosby cited at 300 - 400 million in the same range as The Beatles, Elvis and MJ, without any kind of certifications to back it up? JFonseka (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

VR or VS (verifiable reference or source). The Songwriters Guild, Billboard and publications on qualitied research are all verified sources. Opinions are not, so please help me understand how in this article, opinion trumps sources. Eight88 (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the UK, Platinum Awards for Albums were only introduced in 1973. You could only get ONE per Album. You also had to sell £1 Million worth of copies, in UK Stores, to get a Platinum Award. It was hard to do, as Albums were not hugely expensive at that time.

1) It was only in 1978 that the BPI changed the rules, and you needed to sell 300,000, (or more), copies of your Album to get a Platinum Award. Even so, you could only get 1 per Album - no matter how many times it sold 300,000.

2) Therefore, ABBA's 8 British Number 1 Albums - from 1976 to 1982 - only got 1 Platinum Award each. Nelson thinks this means they only sold 300,000 each, in the UK! He gives them just 2.4 Million Sales between them. (Using THAT method we could claim that NOT ONE Beatles UK Album sold 300,000 copies, (when they were together) - as not one got a Platinum Award. We know that several sold well over 1 Million in Britain, and 'Sgt Pepper' sold over 4.5 Million - so it would be silly to decide their Sales on the fact that none got a Platunum Sales Award here).

3) In fact, 'Greatest Hits' by ABBA sold around 2 Million - 2.2 Million in the UK, - 7 Platinum Awards had it been able to earn more than 1 - but, MULTI Platinum Awards did not come out in Britain until 1987 - long after ABBA had split up.

4) In a List that I saw elsewhere, Nelson gave ABBA less than 16 Million Singles Sales Globally. He gave them 10 Million UK Sales - as 'The All Time UK Singles Acts', List had been published - ABBA were 8th, on just over 10 Million. THEN, he added in LESS than 6 Million in the entire rest of the World.

5) It is not surprising that he got less than 6 Million Singles Sales for them, outside the UK, when he merely looked at Awards to decide. For instance, he gave them just 1.5 Million German Singles Sales. He saw that:, 'Waterloo', 'Honey, Honey', and 'Fernando', had German Awards for 500,000 Sales each. So, he added them together, and gave ABBA just 1.5 Millon Singles Sales in Germany.

To do this, he IGNORED no less than 18 ABBA Top TEN Hits in Germany, as they had no Awards - and 7 of them were Number 1's there for ABBA. They clearly sold far, far more than 1.5 Million Singles in Germany.

6) But, this is what happens, if you just use Awards to work out Sales. You end up ignoring a great many of an Acts Singles and Albums - and, also vastly reducing their Sales, when those Acts could only get 1 Award per Album.

7) In Australia, he only ever mentions that 'Gold' sold 770,000 plus there, as he can see it got 11 times Platinum Disks - 11 times 70,000 Sales.

However, when ABBA were together, they sold over 1 Million of 'The Best Of ABBA' there, and over 800,000 - 900,000 of 'Arrival' - but, he ignores those ABBA Albums, as they were unable to get Platinum Awards, in Australia, at the time.

8) So, time and time again, we see that Nelson's method REDUCES Sales hugely. I estimate 15 Million UK ALBUM Sales for ABBA - he comes up with around 8 Million LESS than that, as he only counts the Awards they got

9) I do NOT believe that ABBA sold 350 Million - 400 Million Records Globally. It is probably more like 180 Million to 200 Million. But, nor have Elvis & The Beatles sold 1 Billion Records each Globally - they have simply not been THAT far ahead of ABBA, in most Global Charts. We are expected to believe that The Beatles and Elvis, did 5, 6, or 7 times better than ABBA, in virtually every Country on Earth. It is more like 3 times better, from the Global Charts that I have studied. (As regards Top 10 Hits, and Number 1 Singles and Albums etc.). (Elvis only had ONE German Number 1 Single, believe it or not).

10) IF you look at STATISTICS, and count Global Top 10 Hits, Number 1 Hits, Top 10 Albums, Number 1 Albums, Singles & Albums Weeks at Number 1, Weeks On Chart, etc. - ABBA ARE one of THE All Time Top 10 World Acts. This is despite them only getting to Number 1 in the USA for 1 Week - 'Dancing Queen' in 1977.

The statistics suggest that ABBA are certainly one of the Top 10 All Time SALES Acts too. MAYBE not in 3rd place, (after The Beatles and Elvis), but, certainly in the Top 5, I would say. Probably only Madonna and Michael Jackson are ahead of ABBA, (but, also behind Elvis & The Beatles), in the Global Top 5 Acts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 13:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Cliff, interesting post, I have heard about this issue before too in regards to the USA and a shipment of 1 million dollars worth equating to a gold record in the 50's. I am not sure whether the RIAA and other industries have taken this into account and done the conversion to reflect the proper sales, but I'm assuming that they have already done this. If not, is there a link that discusses this, because I'm slightly confused here. I do not doubt that ABBA are one of the top 10 sellers, probably top 5. Madonna ahead of ABBA? I don't think so. And furthermore, who the hell is Nelson? JFonseka (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The data above is from "Nelson", not Nielson Soundscan. He is one of the editors on the UKMix forum group. When it comes to groups that had major sales pre-CD, I am curious to know whether the advent of the CD format increased the album sales to a significant degree or not. For example, ABBA Arrival was estimated as selling 10 million globally by end of 1977 (vinyl/cassette). It was re-released in CD format globally in the early 1980's, again in 1997 (digitally remastered), again in 2001 (Remastered again), again in 2006 (30th Anniversary). With 30 years continued sales in CD format globally - any known references on what percentage of added sales the CD format would bring to an album? Eight88 (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

sorry i meant Nielsen SoundScan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 15:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Err...Soundscan is only used in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFonseka (talk • contribs) 15:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Nielsen Soundscan is global. I know it's used in Poland, Portugal, and Brazil.—Kww(talk) 15:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

i mean nielsen soundscan, RIAA, BPI ,IFPI ,CRIA ,ARIA might have miss calculated all of these artits sales so they might have sold less or more than given —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 15:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Eight88, what you mean with this statement above? Who says he was a small seller globally? His sales were mostly during the war era, so where American soldiers went, so did his sales. Are you saying now that American soldiers helped Crosby market his music and manage to sell 300-400 million? You want to bring an administrator here as you state above, be my guest. But if we all question the 1 billion figure for The Beatles and Presley whose certifications are literally abundant in every market one looks into, regardless of their time period, just on what grounds do you keep insisting on Crosby's massive sales, whereas the combination of all Crosby's certification doesn't even represent a figure of 10 million. 400 million for someone like Crosby is even more inflated than 750 million for someone like Michael Jackson. While I admit that some of his records have no chance of appearing in foreign markets' databases because they all began issuing certification much later than US, I must state that if Crosby was globally massive, record companies would have printed countless Greatest Hits after his death and they would've all appeared within foreign databases not to mention the US. Good example of this would be Presley's various Greatest Hits posthumously, they all sold well not to mention that some of them sold better than the records while he was still around. Let's cut this short let's locate a source claiming 100 or 150m and we'll put him up on the list. --Harout72 (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have not edited the main article (yet), it was too premature to say an administrator was required. If you can find two sources that claim these sales are too high that are better than the Songwriters Guild, Billboard, and J. Murrells - go ahead. If you can justify keeping Bing Crosby off the list based on fact, not opinion, supply it (no, certifications is NOT a justification, as his sales were pre-certification). If you can quantify how your opinion surpasses experts knowledge, please do inform us. Otherwise, as per wikipedia policy, add to the article. I note that Elvis and the Beatles higher claims are in the article, but oddly for this one - based on opinion - he is kept off. Very strange Eight88 (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have explained to you above, yes, Crosby has begun his career very early for most countries' certification-databases to catch his materials, but not too early for RIAA (which has established it's certification-based market in '58) to fail to certify 95% of his records. I repeat, had any of Crosby's records sold over 500,000 units after '57 other than the ones already listed, RIAA would have listed them in their database. 6.5 million in RIAA's database for someone who's supposedly sold 400-500 million is not a good start to prove your point. RIAA happens to be a reliable source which doesn't suggest any major sales for Crosby, it's not my opinion. By the way, Songwriters Hall of Fame is not going to do it for this page. As for Presley and The Beatles, both happen to have lower figures other than 1 billion in the tables, those lower figures are close to what the numbers based on certifications suggest. Locate a source for Crosby that suggests 100 million, it will be my pleasure to add him to the list, possibly in a table with all available claimed figures, like the one I've constructed for The Beatles, Presley and Jackson. It's nothing strange, Crosby is not the only that has been removed from the list, you should go over the edit-history.--Harout72 (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be editing the main article soon. I am just awaiting another resource book. Two sources that meet wiki standards compared to nil supplied by yourself, is sufficient to address this anomoly. Eight88 (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to of course to start editing anytime. If; however, it is Bing Crosby you are going to add to the list with figures which we have not been able to verify, then, your edits will immediately be reverted. RIAA is a very reliable source, and you have absolutely no proof that records in general do not get certified when they reach a certification level. In other words, as I've stated before, there is no proof that Crosby's records (other than the ones that are in the databases) have sold more than 1000 copies each regardless of how many records he's managed to release. Anytime there is a huge figure involved such as the one you keep insisting on for Crosby, large part of it is verifiable through the databases, especially RIAA's, which stretches back to 1958. Also read the second section on this page [37].--Harout72 (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You make specific comments. That you will revert any attempt to add Bing Crosby. Two verified sources are known as per wikipedia policy vs your "opinion" that RIAA is absolute. Please refer to wikipedia policy on VR on what consitutes a verified reference. Opinion is not. You state that RIAA is a very reliable source - yes it is, but only in the time period it covers, and cannot be suggested to be reliable for periods it has no information on. The assessment that as not in RIAA then it did not sell well is not logical as has been pointed out multiple times. RIAA is only for certifications that passed $1,000,000 in value of 1,000,000 in sales and not even an automatic award, but has to be applied for and only as far back as 1958. It therefore is a very limited selection of overall sales. Eight88 (talk) 08:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What percentage of 300 million in your opinion Crosby may have sold in US market? Crosby's 1945 album Merry Christmas has received it's first Gold certification in 1970 [38] . The albums Bing Sings and White Christmas which I'm assuming that have been released before 1945 as they are not included in Bing Crosby discography, have received their first Gold certification in 1998 (Bing Sings) and 2004 (White Christmas). In the same vein, had Crosby's other releases before 1958 reached their first gold status or the next certification level, they would've appeared in RIAA's database. And finally, what is a reliable source? Is CNN for example considered a reliable source? Yes it is. How does one rely on sales figures published by CNN or any other reliable source when they're capable of publishing two very different figures for the same artist in two different articles both published on the same day [39], [40]. And there are more example like this. Do you think we should rely on sales figures without trying to scrutinize them? --Harout72 (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

this one claims he sold 300 million http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=1fkQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hpIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1237,5173607&dq=bing+crosby+300+million

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=92SdcBo7EF8C&pg=PA689&lpg=PA689&dq=bing+crosby+300+million&source=bl&ots=i3BFSF329a&sig=qoDnmICCw41s3NYhaYajtvLMSHA&hl=en&ei=7d2jSr2wHaS7jAeH_-SzDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10#v=onepage&q=bing%20crosby%20300%20million&f=false

rememeber i said claimed i did not say he sold this much

i think the best thing to do is put him on the list but with claim sales

i know we cant do the same thing we have done with the top three beacuse its hard to find the Total Certified Sales From Available Markets for him

what do you think is best

I am later on going to make a table for both ABBA and Queen too, they seem to have a lot of certifications all around the world, not as much of course as their claimed figures are, but enough to start a table. For Crosby, however, there is nothing but some 7 million in certified sales. Imagine how ridiculous the 300 or 400 million claimed figures would look with only 7 million in supporting certified sales. And I can't just put him up there in a single-line with his ludicrous sales claim.--Harout72 (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

harout i understand what you are saying but is their a way too get bing cosbey on the list

beacause didn't you say that these articles must come either from highly regarded news services or highly regarded music related sources such as MTV, VH1, articles published by major record companies such as Sony Music or Universal Music are acceptable as well

also rememember the world's best-selling music artists cannot be listed officially, as there is no organization that has recorded global music sales in the manner that the RIAA does in the United States

This page is meant to lists those artists who have had claims made to be among the top sellers. Within their sales brackets. Sources are typically record labels, newspaper articles or manual addition of figures from various official sources. This means that these figures should be considered on the list even if they are claimed they dont have to be facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 23:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In the end we will have millions of edits by random users citing questional sources as their basis for how Jay-Z, Celine Dion, Frank Sinatra, Lady Ga Ga, etc. has sold 600 million records. We don't use record labels as sources, they have a history of inflating sales, it doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong, but just because it originates from a record label doesn't mean we have to include it. Similarly how the RIAA and BPI don't just take their claims without proof. Even Billboard got it wrong in 1972 when an editor published The Beatles had sold 545 million records, the mistake resulted from bad mathematics from an editor who had no idea what EMI was talking about. There was a conversion factor EMI used back then, 5 units for every LP sold. So if 85 million LP's were sold, they multiplied it by 5 to get an idea of the equivelency and thus came up with a grossly inflated figure. I do see that it states claimed sales of 50million+ in the description, but who put this there first? Was this an admin or some random user? There's no need to use claimed sales when there's perfectly acceptable certified sales. This is an encyclopedia, and the article's title is best selling artists, not "best selling claimed artists". JFonseka (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's ridiculous now that people are questioning the certifying industries but not SoundScan, we use the older industries because SoundScan has only been tracking sales in the USA since 1991, and if they are indeed tracking sales in Europe it would be past the year 2000, which means we can't use the sales information accurately. Sorry, we are sticking with the RIAA, BPI and ARIA. We know there are inaccuracies but they have a fairly solid system developed and it gives us an idea of what the sales are like, the only qualm I have with is some of the criteria, however it's the best we have so far, and the system cannot be abused since it depends on the shipment figures, therefore no company will excessively ship albums because they stand to lose for over-supplying when demand for an album doesn't exist, and they can't over-ship until a shipment is ordered, retailers order only the amount they know will sell, and will order more as seen fit, returns are also accounted for. This is an encyclopedia correct, therefore we will use the industries that is their job to deal with this kind of information, and not your opinion on how you think they are doing it wrong. Perhaps we can further expand on a footnote that their sales may not be accurate to the last detail because etc. etc. but we shouldn't have to take editors' opinions and questionable sources over the RIAA, BPI, ARIA etc. JFonseka (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Soundscan vs RIAA - that is another totally separate arguement, one experts cannot agree on, but I do agree with the requirement of a footnote. As I have said, the certifications just add additional into to the article, and cannot be used to verify sales - the data is so skewed and off reality. It is also another arguement that RIAA should not be used at all as they only deal in shipments, not sales. I have seen ref to one album certified 11x Platinum (11 million shipped), but Soundscan says 7 million only sold. Shipments do not mean sales. Eight88 (talk) 09:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Cliffrichard, read the second section on this very talk-page here. See if you could understand anything from all that. One more thing, you must sign after your comments, next time I won't even relpy to your messages if you don't. We don't have to go over the edit history to find out who the messages belong to.--Harout72 (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

harout bing cosbey needs to be on this list because no official tracking system exists to track worldwide sales. Not all the certifications of the associations were launched in 1958 like RIAA (ARIA launched Gold & Platinum Awards in 1983, ZPAV in 1995, etc.), so some albums published before the launch of such awards in a country do not have certifications. Other associations like RIAJ and BPI certifie only the albums that were published after the launch of the Awards. Clifffrichard (talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC).

We are not going with ARIA or ZPAV, we are mainly going with RIAA for this special occasion. And even RIAA does not have enough records listed for Crosby which would hopefully suggest something major. France launched its certification-based system in 1968, and I see absolutely no certified records for Crosby, whereas Frank Sinatra, who's begun his career as early as Crosby happens to have certifications everywhere, not to mention that Sinatra has at least four times as much certified records within RIAA as Crosby. In addition, Sinatra is on the list with a source which claims a modest figure (150 million).--Harout72 (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Garth Brooks

Garth Brooks's sales are only for US. Is there a source which details his sales worldwide? They should be way more than 128 million.75.142.54.211 (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Try searching the BPI and other charts listed by Harout, and let us know. Cheers JFonseka (talk) 02:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit, I moved Garth into the 200 million category based on a report by The Independent, he may move around later as will other artists. But given he's already racked up 128 million sales in albums alone in the USA, the 200mill+ figure sounds very reasonable. JFonseka (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we using this source for Garth Brooks? It's unclear what the exact figure is for Brooks as the article states: The Bee Gees' record sales top 220 million. The only people who have outsold them are Elvis, The Beatles, Michael Jackson and Garth Brooks. We should try and locate another source that clearly talks about the figure of Garth Brooks alone.--Harout72 (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well feel free to remove it, but it's pretty much guaranteed Brooks has sold over 200m already, yes that's right we should locate a more suitable source. JFonseka (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say we wait until we locate another source. I too think that Brooks has sold over 130 million. But the wording of that article is quite vague. Let's leave him within the section where he was before. I'll try and locate one for him, anyways he doesn't seem to have done well anywhere else, I went through the databases of many markets, and he seems to have scored notably in Canada as well but it stops there.--Harout72 (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

harout i do not know if this is reliable but on this article it says gareth brooks total world-wide sales are estimated at 140 million http://www.mytopartists.com/garth-brooks/

Cliffrichard, you are still not signing. The figure within your source is logical, but the source is not reliable.--Harout72 (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Elton John

Based on the source you put for Garth Brooks and the Bee Gees, Elton John has sold less than them. Elton's own wikipedia page says only 200 million and gives a source. Which should be believed? 200 million or 250 million?75.142.54.211 (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I did a google search and that was what was given for Garth Brooks, I had nothing to do with either Elton John's wikipedia page nor his listing in this article, which probably gives you an idea of why we should stick to certification based evidence instead of reporter based claims. I will look into this Elton John thing now, but I had nothing to do with it. It claimed that Bee Gees sold 220m plus and GB sold more, but it doesn't give a figure, I will not make up a figure, so I put a baseline. JFonseka (talk) 05:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit, perhaps you should have looked at the sources yourself, on Elton's wiki page the source is from 2005 and is some online editorial from Yahoo, the link given on this article is to The Telegraph from 2008, has he sold 50 million records in 3 years? Definitely not, but I do not know much about Elton so I won't comment on what his real figure is meant to be, perhaps Harout can give some insight to this, but I'm not changing anything I do not know much about, it's up to whoever regularly maintains the Elton John article to perhaps update his sources and switch to something that's considered more reliable, note this does not mean I necessarily agree with The Telegraph figure, but for the sake of consistency and slowly improving this article, it seems fair for now. JFonseka (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Although it is an old reference, the Guiness Book of records (1999) has him as the most successful UK solo artist (a claim now supposedly held by Robbie Williams) with 180 million album sales. Considering that "Candle in the Wind" sold 37 million, these two figures alone account for 207 million record sales. Eight88 (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean 217 million. 180 + 37 = 217 ;) Robbie Williams wouldn't have logically sold anywhere near the amount that Elton John has, not yet anyways. JFonseka (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks for pointing out the error. Refer comment below in use of Robbie Williams comment - not correct for global sales. Considering the success globally of his (EJ) singles, it is probably 250m - but VR's required to substantiate. Of course the certifications per country will come up short for multiple reasons, making them interesting reading but meaningless. Another factor is that two of his biggest singles (with Kiki Dee, another with George Michael) should not be counted as these are not solo recordings. Eight88 (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course unlike many people, I believe in figures popping up in the databases, through which I'm able to see not necessarily what the exact total for the artist in question is, but they give me the ability to see whether the claimed figures are correct. I looked at Elton John's figures in numerous significant markets. Figures, by the way include singles, albums, videos. US=92.5 million, UK=20 million, Germany=8 million, France=3.6 million, Canada=4.5 million, Australia=2 million ('97-'09), The Netherlands=700,000, Austria=410,000 ('90-'09), Brazil=685,000 ('90-'09), Switzerland=1 million ('89-'09), Finland=163,481. I'd bring in another 5 million for the Japanese market. As far as the figures go for the single "Candle in the Wind" (which I have included in the total for each country) for the same markets excluding a few, I see US=11 million, UK=5.4 million, Australia=980,000, Germany=4.5 million, The Netherlands=240,000, Austria=30,000,Brazil=250,000, Finland=54,225. In my opinion, 250 million for Elton John is a little too high, I'd say it's inflated at least by 30-40 million. If there is no other source that claims anything like 200 or 220 maximum, then 250 may not be correct but it's swallowable; in other words, this is not the worst inflated claimed figure I've come across.--Harout72 (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course datamining from a very limited and flawed selection of data to gain an overall representation is equally hard to comprehend. Please never use your statistical abilities on anything more serious. Eight88 (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Robbie Williams' total, by the way, is around 55 million, at least that's what the sources claim [41], I doubt it's incorrect. I guess that explains a lot about the reliability of the Guinness Book of Records.--Harout72 (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it explains the accuracy of the comment, and the cntext it is used in. In re-reading the article he is the biggest male solo artist in the UK "for sales within the UK", not worldwide. Eight88 (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Does that include his Take That sales as well though? Probably. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it does, ever since he launched his solo career, he's managed to sell over 33 million albums just in Europe according to the IFPI Europe Certifications [42].--Harout72 (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I just had a quick look over his BPI certs and he's accumulated a total of 40 something platinum certifications (inc. both singles and albums). Say that equals around 20 million records alone (someone needs to add this up correctly), plus 33mil in Europe (or is that including the UK since the IFPI is based in the UK?), I'd be estimating more like 65-70mil in total sales. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 07:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Before the advent of multiple Platinum in BPI in what looks like about 1989 - the artists who sold well before that time are seriously under credited. In looking at Elton John, his Best of Album in 1990 spent 2 weeks #1, 96 weeks on the charts and achieved 9x Platinum, yet his Greatest Hits in 1974 spent 11 week #1, 84 weeks on the charts got 1 x Platinum. So credible figures for BPI only exist after 1989. Eight88 (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I counted, and it seems like he's sold over 22 million singles, albums in UK alone (that's included in European continent's certifications), just under 10 million in Germany, I'm also seeing some 1.5 million coming from the Mexican market. I am quite amazed too by what he's managed to accomplish without ever breaking into the US market. I come across very few claimed sales figures that are not overblown, and the 55 million for Williams is one of them. --Harout72 (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Shirley Bassey

A recent article states that she has sold 135 million records, and after reading this page I'd like to know what I can do to confirm this figure. Nothing comes up on the RIAA website, but the Wiki entry for her says "20 silver discs for sales in Britain, Europe and the Middle East; more than 50 gold discs for international record sales; and countless greatest hits compilation albums including one gold and two platinum." I would like to see my favorite singer included in this list. Thanks, and here is the article: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article6610939.ece Nyctc7 (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is what personally do when I want to verify and see whether the claimed figures are correct or not, I check for existing certification-awards in as many certification-databases as I can. In the case of Bassey, since she's from UK, I first checked for her certifications in BPI's database, and I see only 2.2 million in certified sales, she doesn't seem to have any awards listed in RIAA's database, nothing in the German database (most UK artists have done well and do well in the German market). I see no certifications listed for the French market [43], nothing in Finland [44]. Canada's CRIA doesn't have anything either. As for what Wiki entry states at her page, the statement is supported by this source which doesn't seem reliable at all, not to mention that it doesn't contain anything about Bassey. I don't think she could have sold as many as 135 million records, perhaps, 50 million maximum. Had she gathered as many as 50 gold discs or 20 silver, we certainly would be able to see good percentage of it in the databases. --Harout72 (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I VERY much appreciate your efforts, Harout72. While I am somewhat disappointed--and a little surprised, as not only is she described as Britain's most successful female singer, she has toured the world numerous times--when I see on this page some of the great artists (like Johnny Cash) who haven't made the list, I don't feel so bad. Am I reading the certifications correctly? BPI is 300,000, 100,000, and 60,000 for Platinum, Gold, Silver (Albums) and Shirley has 1 Platinum, 5 Gold, and 8 Silver, so that is 1,280,000 certified sales, correct? Where did you see 2.2 million? Another question: I'm a little confused about what to do when someone's career stretches back before some databases, like the BPI's 1973--Nyctc7 (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good question and I notice that it bothers many. Let me first say that naturally some of Bassey's records have gone uncertified in UK because as you mention above BPI has launched its certification system in '73, but selling as many records as 135 million claimed by the source you have provided above, would require many other markets' support including the US market as it's not an easy task to sell that much in UK's market alone, especially back then. In US, the RIAA has begun issuing certifications in 1958, and I see in Bassey's discography that her first studio album Born To Sing the Blues was released in 1957, had any of her albums from thereon sold 500,000 units or more in US, RIAA would have listed in their database. Another thing I do in a case like this, I look at the title of the first Bassey's album that has received a certification in UK, it's The Shirley Bassey Singles Album released and certified in '75 by BPI. Now, some markets including the German and the Canadian markets have begun issuing certifications in '75, and none of the two has listed any of those records that have been certified in UK after '75. France has begun it's certification-based-system in '68, and Finland in '71, but again, no sign of certifications. I know it may seem difficult to believe, but even with those records that have gone uncertified, we still should see a lot more than just 2.2 million in certified sales if the 135 million figure was true. We would have to see at least some 20-30 million records in the databases, such is not the case; however.

Note that certification-volumes have experienced a decline due to music piracy after 1999/2000. For BPI, to convert Bassey's records into figures, I am using 400,000 for Platinum, 200,000 for Gold and 100,000 for Silver, for 20 of the Best I used the current volumes. --Harout72 (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Bassey's largest hit "GoldFinger" sold several million, but as was from a soundtrack, she is not accredited it in album sales (also several million), however overall as pointed out - her career on the charts wasn't too fruitful. Eight88 (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find "Goldfinger" in the RIAA database, I also looked up under John Barry, but nothing! (On the Shirley Bassey Discograpghy page, it uses Guinness Records as a source for a million-seller. Don't know if that is considered sufficient)--Nyctc7 (talk)

I have added the following to the Shirley Bassey talk page:

"Recent newspaper articles have quoted a figure of 135,000,000 in record sales for Shirley Bassey, but do not indicate the source.

Figuring record sales is fraught with complications. Before organizations such as the RIAA (USA) and BPI (UK) started certifying record sales with Platinum, Gold, and in the case of BPI, Silver records, the record companies themselves made such awards, and it wasn't unknown for them to inflate sales figures. Even after the awards moved from record companies to organizations such as the RIAA, certification was not automatic; the record company had to request it and pay a modest fee, and often they didn't bother. A further complication for someone like Shirley is that the BPI only started certifying sales in 1973, after her 1950s and 1960s career, and after her well-selling album and single, 1970's "Something."

In the BPI online searchable database, Shirley has 1 Platinum, 5 Gold, and 8 Silver albums. Qualification for albums was initially on the basis of revenue received by manufacturers, but in January 1978 the BPI abolished the old monetary system for albums and replaced it with a unit system, whereas (P= 300,000 G= 100,000, S= 60,000). Taking the old and new into account, a figure for Shirley's BPI certifications would be around 2.2 million in album sales. Of course, that doesn't include sales that don't reach the certification level, nor does it include sales anywhere outside the UK, nor does it include pre-1973 UK sales. Shirley has no USA certifications according to the RIAA online searchable database, which goes back to 1958, when the RIAA began certification.

I have left the 135,000,000 figure alone for know, as some source may come to light to authenticate this figure"--Nyctc7 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

From "Complete UK Albums 1956-2005":Graham Betts" ISBN 0 00 720532 5 - Shirley Bassey has 36 albums that charted, with accumulated 306 weeks on the UK charts. Of this 6 made the top ten, highest charting at #2 (March 1975). Although does not assist in total sales details, does show she was frequently on the UK charts. Eight88 (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Bing Crosby

It is better to separate this into separate segment. Two arguements exist - that he should be on the list as he was a prolific songwriter and had major chart success:

• Between 1927 and 1962, he scored 368 charted records under his own name, plus 28 as vocalist with various bandleaders, for a total of 396. No one else comes close; compare. Paul Whiteman (220), Sinatra (209), Elvis (149), Glenn Miller (129), Nat King Cole (118), Louis Armstrong (85), the Beatles (68).
• He scored the most number one hits in the 20th century: 38, compared to 24 by the Beatles and 18 by Presley.). His sales re-exist RIAA.
• The Songwriters Guild of America has his sales at over 300 million.
• A published authority (J.Murrells) on UK/US Charts from 1903 - 1982 has quotes 400 million.
• In 1960 he was awarded a special platinum disk as First Citizen of the Recording Industy for 200 million sales globally.
• He holds the biggest selling single of all time (White Christmas) - estimated at 50 million worldwide, as well as Silent Night (est's range from 7-30 million), Jingle Bells (7 million).

Arguements against:

• RIAA awards are minimal (RIAA began in 1958, 8 years after Bings main sales) Eight88 (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

btw, if you find a reference stating White Chistmas has sold 100 million, it is because it as been taken out of context. Yes it has, but only 50 million from Bing's version. Eight88 (talk) 10:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

from http://www.bingcrosby.com/

• He received 23 gold and two platinum records, including the first double-sided gold record ("Play a Simple Melody" / "Sam's Song").

• In 1960, he received a platinum record as First Citizen of the Record Industry, having sold 200 million discs, a number that doubled by 1980. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 21:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

but before you say i am argeeing with this article here me out these figures might be wrong for these reasons

The problem with tracking record sales is that independent companies actually produce the CD (album, as we used to call it) under contract to the label. Many different manufacturers would actually make and ship a particular album, as may be directed by the label. It's easier to ship a set of master recordings to different manufacturers around the globe and have them ship more or less locally, than to manufacture in one place, and ship from there to all destinations. A press run is considered complete, plus or minus 10%. Once shipped to a store, it's considered sold, even though in many cases the retail outlet has the right to return unsold inventory for a credit (much the same as it has been in book publishing). Ship 1 million units to FYE stores, receive 400,000 back unsold, and it's still considered 1 million sold. Then, ship the 400,000 to Borders, and now you've sold 1.4 million, even though you only made 1 million. Get 50,000 of those back, and.... and you see the difficulty in actually tracking the sales.

Add to that unscrupulous manufactures who produce less than order (knowing a certain amount will be returned) but nonetheless claim the total produced, and you complicate matters.

Then there are those who keep the machines running, and produce 2 million units, selling the extra million on the gray or black markets, without reporting that to the label, and keeping the profits themselves.

Labels may, knowing a lot of this goes on, use inflated numbers to account for the extra "sales" or return/sales, because people like to buy what everyone else is buying (even though they try to fight piracy). PR sells. High numbers generate good PR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 22:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

not sure why you would use this argument for a pre-CD artist. This is quoted from the WJS article where Readers can make comments, and in reading it - it is plausible this occurs, but still conjecture or stated opinion. Interesting perspective though - thanks. Eight88 (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as chart entries go, artists need to remain within the top twenty for many consecutive weeks in order for their high chart positions to translate into major sales which in their turn would qualify for either gold or platinum award-levels. In other words, there are many artists who manage to occupy the number one position, but those records don't always become high sellers due to dropping out of the top 20 within a few weeks. The Billboard doesn't seem to have updated Crosby's section. But I managed to check and compare Crosby's entries to the Beatles for US market through a German chart-position tracking system called chart-surfer.de. The Beatles seem to have had 20 number ones (songs) in US, whereas for Crosby, I see only 9 number ones. As for UK positions, I compared The Beatles to Crosby using everyhit.com chart-position tracking system. The Beatles in UK have had 17 number ones(songs) whereas Crosby doesn't seem to have had any number ones, chart-surfer.de is showing only one number-one for Crosby. In the same vain, Chart-surfer.de shows that Elvis Presley has had 14 number ones (songs) in US, and 18 number ones (songs) in UK. And that wraps it up. --Harout72 (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The german link correlates accurately to the reference books. On the plus side for Bing Crosby, it shows he had large hits (not short stayers as suggested, up to 11 weeks no. 1). On the minus side, it begins in 1940 (Bing began in 1926). It also excludes the albums from 1937 to 1946 - 22 of them major, and possible no.1 charters but at the moment cannot be verified. As for Everyhits, it begins in 1950, so non useful for Bing Crosby. You have however finally found an onsite reference that begins to show data pre-RIAA, and if anything shows that you cannot use RIAA as a baseline for artists pre 1958. The first million seller was 1903 - 50 years before RIAA, so a few years yet to find. I suggest that you continue to expand your horizons and seek out some publications on the earlier US/UK markets, as very informative and enlightening. Eight88 (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

List of number-one singles in Australia during the 1940s has a list of his successes on another of the major markets (Australia). Just about every single hit was a duet. Eight88 (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The German link correlates accurately to the reference books? The Chart-surfer.de shows only 9 number-one hits for US, whereas above you are speaking of 38 number one hits. Are you suggesting that Crosby has scored another 29 number ones before Only Forever (released in 1940). You keep mentioning that Crosby has begun as early as 1926, why don't you want to update Bing Crosby discography? It contains none of his materials before 1945. Also, artists sometimes start early but their records become commercially available many years later. It looks like this is what Crosby may have experienced. Judging from his chart-positions in Germany (only 4 of them) and in UK (only one number one) and no positions for France, I feel quite confident to say that US has most likely been his biggest market. I am not sure; however, how much record-sales those number-one hits could have generated for him, considering that the population in US was probably under 100 million. By the way, sources for Australian chart-positions? Not that they would make a big difference, especially back then in the '40s or '50s. At the moment, the population in Australia is only 21 million, I have a perfect picture in my head what kind of sales Australia's possibly under 5 million population could have produced for Crosby back then.--Harout72 (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As has been "repeatedly" stated - RIAA, BPI, and most of the other charts are all after this period in music history. I cannot rewrite American Music History to fit within the RIAA timeframes, as you equally cannot keep demanding RIAA data that does not exist, nor will ever exist and there is NOT a 1 to 1 connection between sales and RIAA. So why keep going down that path? Why keep introducing more opinions and speculations rather than determining facts? Why not think out some of the answers yourself - like possibly back then all they had was a record player, no TV, no internet - I mean, it's not helpful - I quote from references, how am I supposed to know the dependancies behind that reference - that is why the authors write them based on their own meticulous research. The reference books are a mix of chart statistics and mini-biographies covering 1000's of artists - so only pockets of info on individuals, certainly not entire masses of detail on all releases, their dates, etc. How does this tie in with Chart-surfer.de: - it matches as per book (maybe even originated from it of 9 no.1 "singles" from 1940 - 1947) - the same book that specifies that overall, he had 21 singles & 1 album sell over 1 million, and 5 albums over 6 million, 2 albums 0.5 million. Note that for albums that it refers to million ($), singles million (unit). There is no correlation between sales and whether the albums topped the charts, and no detail on what 1 million ($) equates to in units. He also mentions Bings first million seller album was in 1939. It states that Bing was awarded an special platinum award in 1970 for 300,000,000. He had received one in 1960 for 200,000,000. Also, it was questioned about his selling record overseas - an opinion expressed that it would not have been huge. Repetitive answer, no records exist. UK data begins in 1952, which would have helped a lot in determining a pattern - but a similar pattern did exist in Australia (the ref btw is on the page) - which although not as large shows evidence of this. Eight88 (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this the source for Australia's chart positions you are referring to here? Unless a fee is paid, one cannot have an access to the positions. I cannot even verify them? As I have stated above in another section, records don't necessarily have to get certified in the same year they are released. Let's bear in mind that population is one of the two major factors (economy and the size of population) in record sales, and due to lack of population and possibly economical status, Crosby's records (at least the ones listed in RIAA's database) have been certified decades later. Note that Crosby's 1945 album Merry Christmas has received it's first Gold certification in 1970 [45] . The albums Bing Sings and White Christmas which I'm assuming that both have been released before 1945 as they are not included in Bing Crosby discography, have received their first Gold certification (Bing Sings) in 1998 and (White Christmas) in 2004. In the same vein, had Crosby's other releases before 1958 reached their first gold status or the next certification level, they would've appeared in RIAA's database. The more I analyze the more convinced I become that his sales has not been as strong as stated by some sources. As for the UK positions, the first UK position that chart-surfer.de illustrates is from 1950, although it does state in drop-down UK single-charts... ab 1952 (UK single-charts ...since 1952). Also, note that for US it states in the drop-down US single-charts...ab 1955 (since 1955) but the first Crosby's single is from 1940.--Harout72 (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Points from your comments - not seeing a reference/publication does not make it invalid, nor incorrect. The majority of all references fall into this catagory. Population and economy is also valid, as equally the fact that there were fewer artists being marketed so market share was higher per artist, that LP's and 45's (and radio/films) were the only available source of obtaining the artists recordings. In 1946 RCA-Victor reported their 1 billionth album sale (J.Murrells), so sales although smaller than today, still existed in sufficient quanity. Although speculation, but as the US was at war with Germany/France/Japan in this period, I would not expect to see huge sales from these countries even if their databases did go back that far - so suggest wasting time even using them for this period in history. Regardless of whether it was 1940's or nowdays, there are a multitute of factors both assisting the artist as well as going against the artist. There is evidence of 29 million in the US (J.Murrells), and if you "believe" White Christmas only went gold in the US - then 50 million for album, and 50 million for single globally. If you "believe" Silent Night, Jingle Bells did not sell well in the US, then another 12 million. Already 140 million on a few of this known sellers. But of course, I equally believe via common sense that these did sell in the US, so is double-dipping on data. Statistics can be manipulated to whatever you want to see, that does not make it correct. It is better (and policy) to stick to VR and let the experts in the subject be refrenced. Eight88 (talk) 00:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Found this [46], listing his releases and chart positions from 1926 onwards. It is possibly a fansite, but does show missing detail from J.Murrells book and ties in with the book also on common shared details. It states his sources as being from several reference books on music history Eight88 (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Also from "Pop Memories - 1890 to 1954": Joel Whitburn. Top Artists Achievements - Bing Crosby no.1 with 36 number one hits. Most charted singles - Bing Crosby no. 1 with 336 charted singles. Biggest selling artists 1930 - 1939, Bing Crosby @ no.1. Biggest selling artists of 1940 - 1949, Bing Crosby @ no.1, Biggest selling artists 1950 - 1954, Bing Crosby @ No. 5. Eight88 (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The only logical thing J. Murrells says is that there is an evidence of 29 million having been sold in US. Where do you think Crosby could have sold the rest of 270 million records, when you yourself are excluding three major markets Germany, France, Japan. And I'm quite certain that Crosby's target markets were simply US, Canada, UK and Australia. Yes, it's true that fewer artists were being marketed and I also agree that the market share was higher per artist, but can we use common sense for a moment please, there pretty much was no economy nor was there marketing in 90% of the globe until mid 50s. Even after mid 50s Crosby couldn't sell his records in many countries including Soviet Union, east Europe, China. And wherever the western music was not forbidden, spending money on records was the last thing in people's mind including in south/central America, India, Africa. So let's be realistic please, 50 million for the album White Christmas, or 50 million for the single is outright outrageous. Crosby may have been the biggest artists during the years you have above, but calling him the biggest artist back then, sales-wise it would translate into something like Green Day for nowadays, considering only 30 million in US. Even Elvis Presley couldn't have sold as much as he's managed to sell after mid 50s, if it wasn't for the US market for the most part (175 million in certified sales only). As for these publishers, I would personally avoid calling these people experts as both CNN and The Daily Telegraph seem to have experts like that, who are capable of publishing two very different figures for the same artist in two different articles either for the same day (CNN [47]. [48]) or just a few months apart (The Daily Telegraph [49],[50]) . I am really sorry, as much as I respect all your inquiries on Crosby, adding Crosby to the list with 300 million is beyond possibility. You could bring an administrator here, and have them read our discussion. If they believe, I don't make sense, let them add Crosby to the list and I will stay out of their way. However, I've been analyzing sales figures enough to recognize a spurious figure when I see one, and this is one of them. The 300 million for Crosby is at least 150% inflated. In other words, his actual figure should not surpass 100-120 million. Let's not waste anymore time please trying to convince each other otherwise. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I give no credibility to reporters - regardless of who they work for, unless the quote physical sources for their data - most never do. I do however give credibility with publishers who have obtained their statistical information from the record industry, RIAA, Cashbox, Billboard, The American Society of Composers etc... I have also tried to be fair, in stating limitations of markets (as you picked up on), and quoted the increase of 100 million between 1960 and 1970 in sales (which you did not pick up on). The point of a discussion (although we both have abused this to a large extent), is to supply all the details as possible and allow all to assess. And this is all I have done, quoted as much factual info as I can find. I prefer factual information compared to possibilities and maybes. Finally, although I started off with no doubt as to his sales, your pushing and making me source other data, has placed doubts ... not conceding, it just needs more research. "That" is what it is all about - to openly learn. I will not be editing the article as yet, till there is sufficient knowledge Eight88 (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The RIAA Numbers are by disc and not by units sold therefore making them a fairly unreliable list since there could be a 4 disc box set that would be counted 4 sales per unit. Also, they only take into account United States sales. This article isn't exactly a credible source for record sales figures, but it's more all encompassing than the RIAA list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clifffrichard (talk • contribs) 12:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Having now received a copy of Joel Whitburns book "Pop Memories: 1890-1954", it is extremely interesting in matching fact with some assumptions made. It comprehensively lists over 400 charting records by Bing Crosby. It also specifies elsewhere that the cost of a record was 30c in this period (Decca), so million sellers ($ back then)would have had to sell 3.3 million units to get to this status. He had 211 records that made the top 10 (White Christmas on many occasions). This book a well as Joseph Murrells state that the majority of hits in this period came from the movies (globally), and Bing Crosby was by far the biggest earning star of that period. Joel Whitburn specifies a global total of over 300 million. Another book, "Complete UK Hit Albums 1956 - 2005: Graham Betts" - which is during the tail end of Bing's career, shows Bing charting higher and longer in the UK than in the USA. Graham Betts also specifies a global total of 300 million. That is therefore 3 published sources stating 300 - 400 million,and one online source. That is sufficient to add to the chart list. Eight88 (talk) 22:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have provided an explanation in countless ways that regardless of how many top-10 hits an artist has, top-10s do not necessarily affect sales unless those particular records spend many weeks within the top-20. And I don't understand what this statement It also specifies elsewhere that the cost of a record was 30c in this period (Decca), so million sellers ($ back then)would have had to sell 3.3 million units to get to this status above is supposed to prove. So let's say Crosby has sold some 29 million in US according to Joseph Murrells (as you have stated earlier within the discussion), and let's assume his sales in UK is about 20 million (which is highly doubtable with UKs then much smaller population) since I see here Crosby has had not only more hits in UK than in US, but also some of them seem to have spent longer period of time within the top-10. Supposedly, now we have say 50 million, where exactly do you suggest we pull the rest of 300 million (250 million)from ? I'm quite certain, this 250 million cannot be coming from south/central America nor could it be coming from Asian markets not to mention the former Soviet Union and the entire eastern Europe should be taken out the equation and I wouldn't want to discuss anything about the Indian and African (then) markets. 300 million is a very serious number which can't simply be covered with the help of English speaking territories only considering the world's (then) smaller population. I do believe, we are beginning to chew the same chewed gum, don't you think? --Harout72 (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually you have provided nothing. At no point have you provided any reference that disputes the references provided, and at no point have you supplied counter references to any alternative figure. All you have done is supply speculative analysis and basing non inclusion on that. As a fellow editor, I have supplied multiple references that meets criteria, and is published encyclopedic references. The policy on concensus is based on the given concensus by the experts - not concensus between fellow editors. If you do not agree with the references, you can add a dispute tag to them, but you cannot remove them just because you "think" the are not right. I can equally put up analysis on how the 300 million is achieveable based on the details known, but it is no more factual than your data, no less speculation, and no more authoritive. That is why we base it on references known. As you have not given a valid reason for deleting the references, I will add them back in. I will remind you of the 3RR rule also. Eight88 (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have provided detailed analysis as to why the 300 million records is beyond possibility for someone like Bing Crosby. In fact, you have not provided a single highly reliable source, all of your sources are published books by authors who are not employed by highly regarded news services, which is all we accept here. Just because you claim that the sources provided by you are authenticated well researched publications it doesn't make them so. In addition, we don't accept sources like Songwriters Hall of Fame as they tend to exaggerate figures. If you could equally put up an analysis and prove that Crosby has actually sold as many records as claimed by your sources, please do so. By the way, the only person that needs to be reminded of WP:3RR is you since you clearly happen to have a history of violating it.--Harout72 (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but the sources provided meet the criteria for being VR. However, your detailed analysis still remains speculation and constitutes original research. As stated any times, you simply cannot remove sourced material, just because you believe it is not true.Eight88 (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Artists on this page are to be supported by highly regarded sources (news services), please do not ignore my months of hard work. I hate to repeat myself but the sources that you are providing are considered reliable only by you. In other words, researches conducted by independent publishers who are not part of highly regarded news services are not allowed. In addition, we are to scrutinize every single sales figure as I have stated above within this discussion page to avoid inflated sales figures regardless of who the figures are published by. And Bing Crosby clearly is one of them. --Harout72 (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review your comments for the following reasons - within this discussion page is at most a suggestion. One editor cannot dictate content requirements especially if they go against the object of the article. This article is not entitled "List of Best Selling Artists-excluding those pre RIAA, or does not appear in online certification databases". Equally, stating that I am the only person who considers the references as being verfiable is not correct - the correct statement is that you solely have considered them not acceptable as nobody else has ever commented on them (on this aticle). These books are used as references throughout wikipedia. I also refer back to your previous comment "I have supplied detailed analysis...". Please supply this detailed analysis, as so far all I have seen provided is the speculation detail - and there have been several of these, each contradicting the previous. I understand your stance on trying to clean up the article, but please consider that you have clouded your judgement in trying to do so. With absolutely no data or references at your disposal covering the period, how can you make claims that what you say is correct - everyone else is wrong. Please be a "good" editor in improving the article via following Wikipedia policy on allowing VR, as opposed to the current "I think ..." assessments. Eight88 (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this article is entitled List of best-selling music artists and therefore I put in as much effort as I do into trying to keep it just as the title suggests. I am not here to dictate, I simply have seen enough inflated figures published even by highly regarded news establishments which is what's forced me to begin to scrutinize all published figures. As for your statement the correct statement is that you solely have considered them not acceptable as nobody else has ever commented on them (on this aticle). These books are used as references throughout wikipedia, these books may be used as references by you throughout Bing Crosby related articles, and books of this kind on celebrities could be published by anybody in a modern free market based world, but that wouldn't necessarily make them reliable only because they are published materials. By the way, I have already provided detailed explanation (not a speculation as you suggest) as to why Crosby's sales can't be anywhere 300 million. As I have pointed out earlier, had Crosby's records sold more than 500,000 units in US, they would have appeared within the RIAA database decades after they were released as it seems to be the case with of all of his records that are visible in RIAA's database here. And finally, I do believe that this article looks much better and more credible than before I began cleaning it up. Consequently, I don't believe it makes me a bad editor only because my analysis suggests that Bing Crosby doesn't belong within the 300 million club. --Harout72 (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reformatted table

I've reworked the table in a subpage, made sure to keep to the agreed upon concepts. Just improved the formatting, sourced some statements for the notes section - which I intend to move to the bottom of the page (or section, might actually combine Beatles, MJ and Elvis into one table - with the notes below it). Anyway have a look over it here: User:Kiac/Tables. Okay to implement? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 09:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The footnotes overall look neater, but I discuss a few points there at the discussion. See if you'd agree with me.--Harout72 (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

For BPI, as there is no direct correlation between certification and sale i.e. pre-1989 they could have sold 2 million but will have been awarded 1 x Platinum, then the figures determined represent an untruth, and should not be used. At no point in BPI does there show a value for total sales, so this is catagorically original research and against wiki policy. If RIAA was originally based on monetary value rather than sales/shipments, the same applies. As the references state only the number of certifications given - this is the data that should be in the article NOT their estimated sales equivalents. Then a reference note at the bottom stating BPI awards Platinum for all sales over 300,000 up to 1989 (or whenever it was), and multiplatinum from that period onwards. Eight88 (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Eight88, please familiarize yourself with this section of WP:OR.

I am already familiar with this. This is for routine calculations as specified and where the derived result is correct. This meets neither criteria Eight88 (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What you are saying does not breach OR policy, it's not counting that is the problem, it's the actual stated figures. As it stands, would you like me to include an entire unsourced paragraph? I shouldn't have to translate for you. Can you be clearer and please provide some links to back this up? Because i fail to understand how the BPI never issued multi-platinum certs before 1989. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

From BPI Site: It was actually February 1987.[51]

Therefore, can you now understand that a large selling album/artist prior to 1987 will have certifications that to not match sales. Therefore to quote this conversion is providing a false sales figure. The Beatles certifications are an excellent example and has already been mentioned in earlier discussions. Eight88 (talk) 16:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You misinterpret the entire statement by BPI. BPI states here Qualification for albums was initially on the basis of revenue received by manufacturers. In other words, what they've done is they've issued certifications based on the revenues presented by manufacturers. In other words, if a CD-album was sold by the manufacturer for 5 British pounds (for example) back then, 2 million British pounds in revenue presented by the manufacturer would be translated by BPI into a platinum award (400,000 units). They had certification levels as well as multi-platinums regardless of their older calculation-system. One example of this would be Queen's double platinum certification on album It's a Kind of Magic coming from 1986 [52]. BPI doesn't say that they have introduced the certification-levels in February 1987, they simply are saying that they abolished relying on the revenues and started issuing certifications based on units. Also, look at the certifications Michael Jackson's received for Thriller (3 x platinum before 1985).--Harout72 (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I suggest it is BPI who have the anomoly with their records. It states the revenue to unit sale was in 1978, so is really unrelated. It says multi-platinum was introduced in 1987. Then, as you have correctly shown - it has awards in their database prior to that - although very, very few. It is therefore your assessment that prior to 1983 (I chose '83 as MJ's was that time), none of these albums actually deserved muliplatinum status? Queen for example, Graham Betts book says "Bohemium Rhapsody is one of 5 singles to have sold more than 2 million units in the UK" - certified Platinum only. I look through his book of album hits by artists, and see hugely popular albums all at single platinum or lower all pre-multi-platinum. The Sound of Music, 70 weeks no.1 - gold status (this was even pre platinum), countless The Beatles, Elton John, Rod Stewart, Queen. Albums like Grease, Saturday Night Fever - both major chart toppers - gold/platinum only. But after 1987, many chart toppers 1-2 weeks no.1 (Robbie Williams, Westlife) are 2x-6x Platinum. The book shows chronologically all artists from 1956 who have charted in the UK, and it almost without exception shows multi-plat as being non existant pre-1987. It ties in with their statement on when they introduced multi-platinum, whereas oddly, the two examples you found precede it. Eight88 (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that BPI's wording could have been chosen differently, I view the lack of platinums issued in the 70s and 80s from another angle. For instance, if you look at Elton John's records released before 1987-which is supposedly when the multi platinums were introduced-you will notice that BPI's database contains 16 of Elton John's albums, but only 4 platinum-awards, the rest of them are gold (7) and silver (5). I see the same thing with Queen, 14 albums before 1987, but only 5 platinums, 7 of them are gold and 2 of them are silver. Continue looking at the awards as the dates of the releases work their way into the 90s, you will notice not only many multi-platinums, but also note that the gold and the silver awards gradually begin to disappear. This could very possibly be caused by the growth in the population as well as improvement in economy, both of which have lacked in the late 70s and early 80s in comparison with mid 90s and early 2000s. Also BPI's databases was recently updated and they may not entirely be done with updating it.--Harout72 (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In looking at the top 40 albums of all time in the UK from BPI, there are certainly some major inconsistancies when compared to creditations. SGT Pepper 2nd biggest selling album in the UK - no creditations. Simon & Garfunkel 3million+, 1 x Platinum. Odd one in their db, Rumours, says 8 - lists 10x. For the Beatles, Please Please Me 23 weeks number 1, no creditations. And it has nothing to do with the db upgrade, as ref book is from 2005 and is 100% consistant with what is in the BPI database. Yet, others like Meat Loaf and Pink Floyd are fully credited. This has nothing to do with economies of scale, population, etc as the actual sales figures have been given. With such a hit and miss on sales vs creditations, I cannot see a clear way to cover this off in a note. Applying the 80/20 rule therefore, the current note will be sufficient, and artists like The Beatles will come up possitvely short.Eight88 (talk) 06:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Teresa Teng - Pirated copies count?

According to the reference given for Teresa Teng's sales, it is basically an estimation of the PIRATED copies sold in Mainland of China made by Teresa Teng's Foundation.

http://yule.sohu.com/66/06/article209080666.shtml 即使邓丽君不曾踏上中国大陆，她在大陆的专辑销售量，恐怕难有其他歌手可匹敌，邓丽君文教基金会估计，保守数字是1亿张。只不过早期一张有版权的录音带要 20元，工人1个月的工资也不过四五十元，市面上有版权的录音带不多，几乎都是盗版，更常见的是亲友帮忙翻录邓丽君专辑，一张只值2元。

Can pirated copies sold based on estimation be certified? Fmfanbama (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no way of tracking illegally made records. It looks like the first sentence in the paragraph is about the 100 million stated by her management/foundation. The second sentence in the paragraph which doesn't involve her management, suggests that only a smaller percentage of the total figure might be based on copyrighted tapes and the rest of the sales might comprise of illegally made tapes since spending 20 yuan back then on a cassette would be very expensive when monthly pay of an individual was 40-50 yuan. in other words, it seems like a speculation rather than confirmed information. Please inform me if I am mistranslating this.--Harout72 (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

只不过早期一张有版权的录音带要 20元，工人1个月的工资也不过四五十元，市面上有版权的录音带不多，几乎都是盗版，更常见的是亲友帮忙翻录邓丽君专辑，一张只值2元。

Here's my translation:

However, in the early 70s and 80s, a copyrighted record would cost RMB20, which is about 40% to 50% of a commoner's salary which was about RMB 40 to 50. Also, there were not many copyrighted records available in the market with most of them being pirated. It was often seen that relatives and friends would burn copies of her albums which would only cost RMB 2 each.

It was not a speculation that most of the records sold in the China's market in the early 70s and 80s were pirated. It is a fact. China's music industry has always been badly affected by piracy and even until today there is no proper system to certify actual sales of copyrighted records with abundant amount of pirated records being sold in the market

On the other hand, the figures that the foundation provided were based on mere estimation without proper certification and no supporting sources at all. Fmfanbama (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the statement about video tapes and not ordinary tapes? Because video tapes normally represent small part in total sales. And what can you tell me about the source in general? In other words, would yule.sohu.com be considered a reliable source in China. Because what I understand from wikipedia's page Sohu is a search engine. Any idea what the yule stands for?--Harout72 (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Edited. 录音should be translated as records. yule=娱乐，it means entertainment. From what I understood from the article, Teresa Teng's 100 millions sale is based on estimation made by Teresa Teng's Foundation, with most of the records sold being pirated. Fmfanbama (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Elvis has sold 106 albums in US not 211!

According to the RIAA, the Beatles have sold more than 106 million albums in the U.S. alone -- more than any other artist in this century.

http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?news_year_filter=1999&resultpage=2&id=3abf3ec8-ef5b-58f9-e949-3b57f5e313df

• As far as albums go on RIAA's page, one needs to look at this page of RIAA here (it states 120 million for Presley), which is not always updated. By the way, where on the list do you see 211 million in US sales? The table for Elvis Presley clearly states 186 million which includes the sales of albums, singles and videos. As for The Beatles, they've sold 190 million albums in US but again this page here for RIAA needs to be updated which is 20 million short in album sales. --Harout72 (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Whitney should she not be in the over 200 million records sold category?

http://www.lyrics.com/lyrics/whitney-houston/artist-collection-whitney-houston/ this link would satisfy

I believe as a source of information it seems fairly reliable as a biographical piece and she is already stated at 190 on here, with recent record sales of her new album "I look to you", back catalogue sales that have been since that reference being put and recently released a collection outside the US market called Ultimate Whitney. Along with singles sales of her new tracks can she not be moved in to the next category??????

WHY DO YOU EDIT OTHER ARTISTS SALES AND NOT WHITNEY'S. COULD YOU CHANGE THIS PLEASE OR PEOPLE WILL NEED TO BE TOLD THAT THESE ARE INVALID SOURCES.

In addidtion I have also found another source stated over 200 million

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_records_has_Whitney_Houston_sold_worldwide —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scanlon1992 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

GARTH BROOKS

Garth brooks has sold alot mor then 128 million copies... As by wikipedia he has sold 128 million albums in america alone... I think he should be pushed up to the next braken..

kiss source

when i read the kiss number and read it was 70 million records...i thought twice because during all of there concerts they talk about selling over 100 million albums so i click on the source and it is a biography page on rolling stone magazine website. Curiously i read and there was no mention of 70 million records sold. none at all. i recommend kissonline.net and click the history page the first paragraph states the number of sold albums to be over 100 million. please look into

Bengranheim (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)bengranheim

• The article by Rolling Stone here which currently supports the stay of Kiss on the list does mention that by the early 90s Kiss had sold 70 million albums. I will, in the meantime look into their actual sales through the help of certification databases. --Harout72 (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

harout 72 you are bias to some artist on the list

prove to me kiss sold 70 million

• First, you need to sign after your comments. Second, I can't prove that Kiss have sold 70 million but I could prove that Kiss have sold a lot less than 70 million, their sales outside of north America is not looking too bright. Here are some of the markets to begin with, figures include sales of albums, singles and videos:

US sales: 23.6 million

UK sales: looks like Kiss have not even picked up a single silver certification in UK, meaning no major sales [53]

Canadian sales: 1.3 million

German sales: can't find a single gold certification, meaning no major sales [54]

French sales: no major sales as I don't see any certifications whatsoever [55]

Finnish sales: 50,000

Dutch sales: 100,000

Swiss sales: no major sales as I don't see a single certification [56]

Argentinean sales: again no major sales as I don't see a single certification [57]

I could go on and on; unfortunately, that would only prove less and less sales.--Harout72 (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Bon Jovi

bon jovi has sold 130 milllion albums

bon jovi has sold 230 million

bon jovi has sold 125 million

bon jovi has sold 125 milllion

Provide a source please. Skier Dude (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Johnny Mathis

This artist has sold at least 180 Million records till 1983 and world wide sales are now over 350 Million according to Record Historisn and Guniess Book of World Records writer and Music Historian Paul Gambaccini.

Provide a source please, a link or somewhere specific to actually look? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In order for Johnny Mathis to have sold 350 million records worldwide, one should be able to see countless Platinum-awards within all the larger markets in the world. However, looking at Mathis' awards within the databases of US, UK and France which seem to be the only markets that actually have certification-awards for him, do not suggest anything over 50-60 million worldwide. This is all the sales I see for Mathis:

• US sales: 17.6 million
• UK sales: 2 million
• French sales: 200,000

There is no indication of major sales in the following markets:

• Germany: no certifications
• Canada: no certifications
• The Netherlands: no certifications
• Finland: no certifications
• Argentina: no certifications

And the list of those markets with no evidence of sales goes on and on. If there is a source claiming 50 or 60 million for Mathis, then we could add him to the list; however, 180 million is a false figure regardless of how many sources out there claim such a figure, let alone the 350 million.--Harout72 (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Tino Rossi ?

Tino Rossi, french singer, sold over more than 300 millions of records, and keep selling today how can this is not in the top ? How ?

http://mewsic.blogspot.com/2009/09/worlds-top-10-best-selling-music.html http://www.top10land.com/top-ten-best-selling-music-artists.html

This article is really bad, so egocentrik

Do you even know the meaning of the word "egocentric"? Get a grip, you come here with a condescending attitude and chuck a couple of pathetic sources at us? Hah. And people say Wikipedia is unreliable. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 17:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh calm down friend, I just want this article to be better, as I love wikipedia and respect it a lot

Tino Rossi has been removed from this page and will not be added back as his 1.1 million in French sales [58]does not suggest any major sales regardless of how many sources claim blatant figures for him. In addition, there is no evidence of sales outside of France.--Harout72 (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

very funny, 1 million ? haha what a fucking bullshit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.252.37 (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles have sold 170 million in the US according to the RIAA, not 211.

According to the RIAA's website, The Beatles have sold 170 million records. Here's a source...

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

Just trying to help!

Avenue 51 (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The figure of 211 million includes albums, singles and videos not just albums, besides, the album-sales for The Beatles is at 190 million not 170 million. This page of RIAA here needs to go through a serious updating as many album-sales-figures for many artists are understated. --Harout72 (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Artists by reputed sales

Harout72 – there was not any disregard in the edit of ‘21:32, 30 September 2009’ for your work…nothing was deleted!!

Simply trying to:

1) find a way to acknowledge that the heading “Artists by reputed sales” is inconsistent with the headings “300 million to 400 million records”, “200 million to 299 million records”, etc., and

2) find a way to acknowledge that your hard work on the “Notes” section can (should!) be applied to the ENTIRE list, not just the list of the top three artists (Beatles/Elvis/MJ). Currently the table for the top three is set up as the only ‘owner’ of the notes section.

Recognizing that the top three artists are on a slightly different footing for data verification, but wanting to show the category “over 400 million records” – which is more consistent with the rest of your headings - perhaps a more descriptive and consistent heading could be “Artists reputed to exceed 400 million records”.

Recognizing that the notes section would apply to ALL parts of the table, not just the “Artists reputed to exceed 400 million records”, these notes would normally be placed at the end of the wiki article to show that they apply to the entire article. Failing that – and given that these notes are further examples of the constraints on the available data - you could move the notes into the overall “constraints” section that forms the important lead in to the tables themselves.

Nothing deleted... just trying for consistency on the headings and also show that your well researched notes apply to the entire article, not just the first table.

Jmg38 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I never stated anywhere within the edit-summary that anything was deleted. The notes are designed to address the certification-awards. We currently have certification-awards for three artists only, The Beatles, Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson. Having the notes at the end of the article or within the constraints as you are suggesting would not serve its purpose as at the moment no other artist's sales-figure on the page (except three) relies on certifications besides their claimed figures. --Harout72 (talk) 01:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

harrot you need to change the sales figures for everyone on the list not just elvis the beatles and mj this also includes queen and abba

be fair please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.118.18 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Salvatore Adamo

I have removed Adamo from the list as his 300,000 in French certified sales and 50,000 in Canadian certified sales don't suggest major sales. Perhaps, his total is somewhere 30 million considering those records that may not have reached a certification level; however, had Adamo sold 90 million worldwide as stated by some sources, we certainly should have seen large percentage of his records within the databases of various music markets including France'. Such; however, is not the case.--Harout72 (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If Adamo Salvatore can't stay in this list (because there are no enough certifications claiming his sales), than following artists should be deleted immediately from this list: Herbert von Karajan, Nana Mouskouri, Wei Wei, A.R.Rahman, etc. Realistic? No, totally not.

Salvatore Adamo sold 10,4 million records in France alone (and that list isn't updated).[59] Infodisc.fr is more up to date than Chartsinfrance.net. His last album sold 300,000 copies in France only.[60]

Between 1968 and 1971 Adamo sold two million records in Japan.[61]

On his official site is mentioned that he sold 85 million records worldwide.[62] But that figure is not up-to-date.

Some sites claiming he has sold over 90 million records:

• http://www.rfimusique.com/musiqueen/articles/060/article_7251.asp (source of 2004)
• http://houbi.com/belpop/groups/adamo.htm (source of 2001)
• http://www.leparisien.fr/enghien-les-bains-95880/le-public-l-aime-toujours-fort-adamo-11-12-2008-338633.php (100 million, source of 2008)

So, Salvatore Adamo should at least be mentioned on this list (more specifically in the category 75+) Christo jones (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

First, let me thank you for providing the updated page of infodisc.fr here (very useful); unfortunately 8,977,230 in French sales is not enough to claim that Adamo has sold 90 million records. In addition, he doesn't seem to have had major sales anywhere else according to databases. By the way, the source for Japanese sales is unreliable, not to mention that official sites tend to exaggerate figures greatly.--Harout72 (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there are no enough certifications for Salvatore Adamo, but he did sold at least 85 million records. The countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Japan, Russia, etc.), where he was succesful in the sixties and seventies, have no reliable certifications databanks. But for Nana Mouskouri and others the same problem exists. We can't claim that she has sold 200 million worldwide, when we have no certifications to claiming such high figures (she sold in France about 13,3 million records). So I don't think that it is a problem when I delete these artists from the list.Christo jones (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's bear in mind that Adamo's had limited number of markets, Belgium (small market which could never generate much sales), France (8 million + is not enough), he hasn't had much sales in Canada. As much as I would like to agree with your removal of Nana Mouskouri since I too believe that Mouskouri may not have sold 200 million, I believe her actual sales could be somewhere above 100 million as she seems to have had a worldwide distribution. In other words, she seems to have certifications coming from all over the place, UK, Germany, France, The Netherlands, Canada (many of her records have made it big there), so overall it's worth keeping her on the list. I do agree; however, with your removal of Alla Pugacheva. --Harout72 (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research-section

I am concerned that this article does not conform to Wikipedia standards. The 'constraints' is not appropriate for an article; it is not verifiable, it is meta-information; why should this article be different to the other 6,863,590-1, why do we need to state information on policies in the article? We don't; this section needs to be removed.

The same goes for lots of the stuff in 'notes'.  Chzz  ►  00:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

With the updating that is being done by Harout, there may be a point where we can remove some of those things, but I'd be careful with doing this. Its extremely important that people can understand the nature of this list because music sales are much more complicated than they first appear. I don't want to be making the final decisions about this, but as far as I know there are plans to add more tables in the new future. Maybe it would be better to wait for these to be done before we make changes to the 'constraints' and 'notes'. Hitthat (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Why should this article be different to the other 6,863,590-1? Because the sales in 'so named' reliable sources are incorrect and inflated. We've discussed this already many times. There's a big difference between the claimed sales of an artist and the effective sales (the certifications).Christo jones (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying that this article does not conform to Wikipedia standards is incorrect. While I agree that the constraints section may need references (which is the part in the article I haven't edited myself), it serves its purpose by bringing some of the apparent factors (for which we may not find sources immediately referring to the mentioned information) to editors/readers attention that play an essential role within the music industry. As for the rest of the notes designed for the tables, I believe they are referenced and it's significant to have them as many readers may not be familiar how certifications are conducted.--Harout72 (talk) 17:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Outside Opinion

I am glad to see a group of dedicated editors working hard to improve this article. I noticed the request for assistance at WP:3O. I would be glad to offer an opinion if one of the editors would briefly summarize the main issues under consideration. Thanks! —Finn Casey 02:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There appears to be active discussion on a variety of issues surrounding this article. Thus, I am removing this page from my watchlist and trusting it to those involved. Feel free to contact me if the need for a third opinion arises again. —Finn Casey * * * 21:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Beach Boys

The Beach Boys (according to wikipedia)are the Americas top selling band and yet they are not on this list. I know they were 

on here a month or so back. Did they get a lot of sales returns on their records, thus dropping them off the list?

Kirt Caudill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.143.139 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Beach Boys seem to have some 25 million in US certified sales. How could they possibly be one of US top selling bands/artists? They seem to have 2 million in UK certified sales, 100,000 certified units in Germany, 100,000 certified units in Canada. In France, they seem to have 400,000 in certified sales [63] [64]. All in all, their total worldwide shouldn't surpass 40-45 million. I'd agree to put them on the list if there is a source that claims 50 million. --Harout72 (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No Bob Marley? No Cliff Richard?

Someone needs to sort this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.234.6 (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources such as the books here and indeed our referenced article on Bob Marley indicate that he has sold somewhere in the region of 20 million records.

I didn't check on Cliff yet.  Chzz  ►  04:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussion above for Cliff Richard.--Harout72 (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to Harout - it seems that you're replacing a highly reliable source from the highly reliable newspaper The Times with your own personal research.

Sorry, but that is simply not allowed. That goes against wikipedia regulations I'm afraid. The Times is a reliable source and until you can provide a reliable source disproving the claim, Cliff Richard will have to be reinstated. (your own research is not permitted nor is it acceptable). Once I've made the 10 edits required for a new user to edit a locked article, I shall correct this mistake.

As for Bob Marley, I shall research that a little further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseNinja1 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Certification databases are reliable, and I don't replace highly reliable sources with my own research, I simply verify the published figures. And 10 million in UK certified sales is not enough to suggest that 250 million claimed by The Times is correct, whereas Richard's sales is quite poor everywhere else in the world including the US market.--Harout72 (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're sayting but we really can't add them up like that> I've been picked up on doing things like that previously before I signed up for an account; it DOES count as your own research.

We're only supposed to state what we can verify in reliable sources. The Times is a reliable source - adding up certifications from a handful of countries is classed as personal research however, and cannot be used. Therefore, unless you can provide another reliable source claiming a lower figure, Cliff Richards MUST be reinstated near the top of this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseNinja1 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

See my reply above.--Harout72 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Van Morrison

Morrison should be included in the article as he has sold over 70 million records according to Jay Leno (who, I'm sure, would not get a fact like this wrong) on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6jqIR-x-fk&feature=channel_page, but cannot be referenced because this source is YouTube and should not be used on wikipedia, eventhough the video is posted be his official channel. I have searched for another source, but can't find one. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)