Talk:List of best-selling music artists

; Archives
	Talk Archive 1, (December 04 - August 05); Talk Archive 2, (August 05 - January 06); Talk Archive 3 (February 06 - April 06); Talk Archive 4 (May 06 - November 06); Talk Archive 5 (October 07 - December 07); Talk Archive 6 (January 08 - May 08); Talk Archive 7 (June 08- October 08);

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the List of best-selling music artists article.
Please sign your comments using four tildes ( `~~~~` ). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them `== A Descriptive Header ==`. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice.

Template:Multidel

List of best-selling music artists received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Slim Whitman

He sold more records than ELVIS or THE BEATLES! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.135.227 (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All sources must be published by Reliable Third Parties

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

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

Edit summaries

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

Eminem, 2Pac, BTNH

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

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

Duran Duran

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

Anastacia

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

Why are two countries listed?

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

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

Paula Abdul

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

Beach Boys

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

IRON MAIDEN BEHIND GUNS AND ROSES?

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

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

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

Gloria Estefan

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

2 Pac obvioulsy should be in this somewhere

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

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

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

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

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

Backstreet Boys within the bracket of 200-499?

Backstreet Boys, according to reliable sources, have sold some 100 million records world-wide, that is singles and albums combined. Here are sources which support those figures: [3], [4], [5]. We recently had the band moved from 100-199 section into 200-499 by Realist² who made an effort to support his edit by this article. The 200 million figure, which is being presented by the source www.princegeorgecitizen.com in question clearly indicates that this is another false/overinflated statement by just another unreliable source. However, according to Realist² who added the source it should be treated as completely reliable. I believe this source should be tossed out and be treated as completely unreliable, since according to all reliable sources Backstreet Boys have sold 100 million records world-wide. I made an effort to post this source on WP:RS [6] but haven't gotten any responses yet.

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

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

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

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

This matter is resolved in favour of keeping BSB within 100-199 section. See the comment/decision made by an Admin. at WP:RSN [7].--Harout72 (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Corrs

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

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

One billion plus sales?

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

AC/DC Heavy Metal??

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

Blondie

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

Luis Miguel? and NKOTB

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

Artists removed

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

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

Do not add these artists back to the list without locating reliable sources please. I have invested a lot of time in cleaning up this article at times by even asking the opinion of the people at WP:RS in regards to the reliability of the sources that some of the artists were supported by prior to removing them from the list. All sources must be published by third party very reliable sources, such examples could be found here. Regards. --Harout72 (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Did you just revert without checking that sources were provided? Because sources were provided and are indeed reliable. All of those sources have been --Harout72 (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)accepted as reliable on the talk pages for their respective articles, and I don't think anyone could genuinely believe that BBC's music journalism is more reliable than the links provided - one of them is even from a Pearl Jam press release. I mean, is it really so hard to believe these bands have sold over 50 million records? No it isn't. And are these reliable sources? Yes, yes they are. I am reverting back. Alice Mudgarden (talk) 08:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT - Even at the top of this article it states "Sources are record labels, newspaper articles or manual addition of figures from various official sources. This means that these figures should be considered claims, not facts" - so it is likely that many of these here are wildly inaccurate, much more so than Pj and Nirvana. And in addition to this, there are many sources used in the reference section that are only as reliable, or even less reliable, than the sites I quoted from. Some examples are Motley Crue, George Strait, ABBA, The Carpenters, Ray Coniff, and two for RHCP [8] [9].

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

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

Here are some more reliable sources as well.

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

I never revert anything without thoroughly studying the edits. The sources that you have provided to support the stay of both Pearl Jam and Nirvana were tossed out of the list months ago when I decided that this page needed a major cleaning-up. As I mention above-which I am sure you have failed to read-I frequently referred to the opinions of the folks at WP:RS and the use of such sources that you believe are reliable were declined for List of best-selling music artists because they quite often exaggerate the statements within their materials to attract readers, their fans for the most part. "Yahoo music" could not be regarded here as reliable; in fact, none of the sources (except one) that you are providing above can be regarded as reliable. We are to accept only materials published by (for example): CNN, Fox News, Times Online, BBC and all other major news service regardless of the language they're in. Major record company publishings (don't confuse this with label publishing) could somewhat be regarded as reliable, again regardless of the language the material is in. Having said that the source you are providing above by Switzerland's Sony/BMG could be used here, and I am going to support the Pearl Jam's stay with that; unfortunately, we cannot keep Nirvana with the currently provided source (Yahoo Music). If Nirvana has really sold as many as 50 million records then you should not have a problem locating such sales-figure published by a prominent news service.--Harout72 (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I do constantly clean up this page, I have already replaced the NBA based source which was supporting George Strait with other more reliable sources. As for MSN, I don't believe we have an artist solely being supported by it, if there is, it's most probably not the primary source. As for allmusic, it's not my first choice and I don't personally submit edits using that, however, allmusic is the previous All Media Guide which was sometimes even utilized by music associations like Billboard magazine for example [10]. Therefore, it could be regarded as somewhat reliable here as well. In the same vein, MSNBC can be viewed as a reliable source because most of its content is fed by NBC. --Harout72 (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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