List of best-selling music artists is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

Article milestones Date Process Result October 27, 2005 Articles for deletion No consensus November 13, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept June 4, 2006 Articles for deletion Speedily kept September 2, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 23, 2011 Featured list candidate Not promoted January 4, 2012 Peer review Reviewed May 28, 2012 Featured list candidate Not promoted Current status: Former featured list candidate

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Musicians List‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance). Lists List‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Pop music List‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Harout. I begin to think that their 600m claim sales look too much and inflated. I will remove their 600m claim and let them just have only 500m claim for their sales. Thanks Politsi (talk) 06:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I still want to wait and see what RIAA's certifications for their singles in digital format will bring in. The RIAA hasn't issued any certs for their singles in digital format, and they would not necessarily be entirely streaming generated, they'd be retroactively issued certs. Besides, the 600 million figure is the one that's supported by reliable sources at the moment, the 500 million is supported by Daily Express, which is a tabloid. Are there reliable sources for the 500 million also?--Harout72 (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I put Daily Express only for temporary, at least it's a newspaper not a pop culture or a humour magazine. Once I found the better one, I will replace it immediately. Let's see if a newspaper like Times or Herald come with 500m Sales of The Beatles and there is no progress in their certified Sales. We should not used their 600m in the list. Politsi (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Surely if you think the Beatles are inflated, which I do as well by about 50 million, you must think Elvis is inflated as well, TruthGuardians (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was analyzing a little bit and I also consider that those sales figures of the Beatles and Elvis are inflated, I think that this should be objectively reevaluated. AteneaZ3 (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with @Politsi. I think the list would be improved and more accurate if The Beatles' claimed sales were "only" 500M. However, how this change affects the list as a whole has to be taken into account. The Beatles' certified sales are 289.5M right now; however, Elvis Presley's current certified sales are 230.8M. There is a difference of almost 60M certified sales between the two music acts, so it would not be coherent if both had the same highest claimed sales figure of 500M. I admit that it may be a good idea to remove The Beatles' 600M figure, but then Presley's 500M figure would have to be removed as well, and there would have to be a discussion about what to do with Michael Jackson's 400M figure, or change other figures.

That would certainly be the right way to improve this list and achieve a more equal treatment for the artists. Otherwise there will always be more inflated figures for Rock music "classic" artists than for Pop music artists like Michael Jackson, Madonna or Elton John. For example, it is not proper that, taking into account that Elton John's certified sales are 206.9M and Presley's are 230.8M (which represents a difference of 23.9M), the highest claimed sales figure is 300M for John and 500M for Presley. 200M is a too big difference, and this also affects Madonna. Aside from that, I would also like to share this reference, which I think can be used to support The Beatles' 500M claimed sales figure. Salvabl (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern but we must use a source that free for read by everyone. Your source isn't free. Politsi (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would be better to have another open access reference, but in this case maybe it could be used as a secondary reference since there is already an open access reference that supports the 500M figure right now (we have to keep in mind that Wikipedia has many articles referencing books that are not always freely accessible to the users). Apart from that, there is also the option for the reference to contain links to both the archived version and the original, providing readers an open access to the content. Salvabl (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait until another free reliable source available to support their 500m. For now, let the Beatles standing with 600m sales.Thanks Politsi (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you sum up physical and digital sales certified only in US and UK he surpasses 220 mi and gets a place in the first group, no doubt. Gabrielfmachado (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then please find a reliable source from a news organization or a broadsheet newspaper that able to support Eminem's 250m claim. Bring it here. Politsi (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the occasion of Superbowl halftime show <https://eminem.news/pepsi-app.html> they appointed him as having over 520 mi sales (having 130 mi album sales plus 389 mi digital singles). Being 227 mi only in US as <https://deadline.com/2022/03/eminem-breaks-record-most-gold-platinum-singles-riaa-1234973487/> says and RIAA can confirm here <https://www.riaa.com/with-73-5-million-new-certifications-eminem-becomes-the-most-certified-artist-for-singles-in-riaa-gold-platinum-program-history/>, thus around the globe he's clearly got more sales, maybe over 400 mi if inflated. 2804:D4B:7717:600:6C70:42D2:D07C:8EA1 (talk) 21:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eminem attained high sales before the streaming era, but many of his newer certifications are heavily influenced by streaming. Much like artists such as Rihanna (242M units in USA alone), Drake (316M units in USA alone) or Taylor Swift (189M units in USA alone), which millions (or dozens) of these certified units aren't actual copies sold. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to known what are Michael Bublé's certified units? Outlets like The Irish Times have reported sales of over 75 million records. Thanks, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His available certified sales are 46.6 million. For 75 million claim, he'd need 58 million certified units as he's begun charting in 2003.--Harout72 (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it --Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How come this mediocre singer ended up in the top-selling artists list? 46.251.84.165 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the claim of 250 million is absolutely fake! In this article, albums, singles and downloads of single tracks are lumped together. Rihanna has primarily sold downloads and therefore, someone claims that a download of a single track (about one dollar) is as worthy as an album (about ten dollars). That's absolute nonsense. In reality, Rihanna has sold 33 million studio albums, 1 million other albums, 4 million physical singles, 258 million digital singles and 33 million streams, which make 103 million equivalent album sales and put her in 47th place at the moment among the best-selling artists of all time.

The claims of the sales figures listed here are based on inaccurate and non-verifiable pseudo-sources. How can it be that when it comes to "record sales", albums, singles and downloads of individual tracks are lumped together? How can it be possible that an artist like Rihanna, whose alleged figures of 250 million listed here mainly refer to the downloads of individual tracks, is rated higher here than an artist like the Bee Gees, whose sales figures of 120 million listed here have been primarily albums? An album has more tracks, more music, costs more money, etc. and therefore, is worthier in terms of music selling than a single and of course a single download.

Again: Formats with different values must not be added up and listed one to one, because different formats have different values and don't belong together at all! Therefore, I recommend the following source:

CSPC: The best selling artists of all-time as of 2021 - ChartMasters

There, the different formats (physical, download albums, singles, streams) are rated appropriately and an equivalent album sales figure is determined. This also invalidates utopian legends, such as that Elvis Presley allegedly sold 1 or even 1.8 billion (Of what actually?). Hence, Rihanna has sold 33 million studio albums, 1 million other albums, 4 million physical singles, 258 million digital singles and 33 million streams, totaling 103 million equivalent album sales, making her the 47th best-selling artist at the moment, while the Bee Gees with 161 million equivalent album sales are ranked on the 19th at the moment. Please consider this source instead of falling for any newspaper ads or management ducks.

Thanks.

Can someone explain Rihanna's "Total certified unit sales" which supposedly is at 334.8 million (which would make her the best-selling music artist of all time by certified unit sales)?

I checked the U.S. sales numbers according to the provided source and the numbers seem completely off compared to what is claimed in this article. But maybe I'm missing something? Adriano 7 (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're not checking it correctly. If you only looked here, then that RIAA page lists the total number of certifications for the songs Rihanna is the main artist on. It doesn't list the certifications for the songs which Rihanna is a featured artist on. In fact, it doesn't even list the certifications of Mastertone format. Refer to this file for her detailed worldwide certified sales. Harout72 (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please make it right drake is not number one in sales that goes to Eminem by far so please change where it says drake is number one 38.34.83.22 (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Billboard article published in 2019 reported that P!nk has already sold 135 million records worldwide. Is her current standings enough to raise her claimed sales now?

Link: https://www.billboard.com/pro/pink-legend-live-award-2019/ Loibird90 (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For that kind of a figure, she's need 103.9 million certified units, since she's begun charting in 2000.--Harout72 (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, thank you :) Loibird90 (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Harout, Ik you've lowered Phil Collins' Portuguese certified sales because of his 2004 album Love Songs: A Compilation... Old and New, that album received 2× Platinum (80,000) in week 50 of 2004 which roughly translates to Dec. 6, 2004–Dec. 12, 2004, a mere 5 months before AFP lowered their cert thresholds in May, 2005, so it's pretty clear that the 2× Platinum of 80,000 units for Phil Collins' album are legitimate. Moh8213 (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have Love Songs: A Compilation... Old and New at 2x Platinum (80,000) on my file, and we also have 2x Platinum for But Seriously for 80,000 units. Do we have anything else?--Harout72 (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show such source of the Genesis certified sales? Schorsch.landmann (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao! Another failed attempt of me outsmarting someone else, anyway looks like you didn't notice it but in the same source it says his album Serious Hits... Live! was certified Platinum (40,000). Also just found out that his DVD which goes by the same name was certified Platinum (8,000) in 2011. Moh8213 (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you're right, I totally missed that Platinum.--Harout72 (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the error it says drake is the 2nd yet Eminem has sold over 100 million more records than drake so how can drake be the 2nd to Elvis when Eminem is proven to have sold more than drake 38.34.83.22 (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_discography This shows drake has sold 170 million records

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminem_albums_discography And this shows that Eminem has 220 million which is way more than drake so drake is NOT 2nd 38.34.83.22 (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this claim presented in the article at all. It does state that Drake is the highest-selling individual artist based on certified units, which is true if you refer to the table entries for Drake and Eminem – Drake has a higher certified unit count than Eminem, or any other artist for that matter. Eminem does have a higher claimed sales count, but that's not what the statement addresses. There's also no comparison between Drake and Elvis – those two statements are measuring performance in different units. PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 01:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Her RIAA certifications have been updated so an estimated 77 million sales should be added to her current tally to make it 143 million. That would drive her to 189 million sales. I believe there are credible papers that have listed her career sales between 170-200 million records. 190.80.50.79 (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This list is related in someway to artist' articles. Beyoncé discography has now the figure of 200 million with one source supporting it. Should be effective? A huge part of her catalogue was re-certified by RIAA in recent days, which includes her works in the streaming era; pretty sure part of her retroactively certs for 2000s works have it in large quantities as well. Idk it brought my attention that jump. Cheers, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 200 million was also added here by someone, which is an unreliable source, therefore, I reverted it. Some of her RIAA's certs are retroactive but also helped by streaming. Her records sales are most likely now around 150 million based on the amount of the current certified sales, but definitely not 200 million.--Harout72 (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think 200 million claimed sales is still too high for her. Loibird90 (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harout, there is 160m claims sales for Beyonce https://www.independent.ie/life/how-beyonce-conquered-sportswear-34625172.html can we use it?. Thanks Politsi (talk) 06:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, we sure can use that source as her certified sales clearly suggest that her record sales is in that neighborhood. I upgraded her claimed figure. Thanks for that source. Harout72 (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the 200 million figure is actually still too low, and to suggest she has only sold 160 million records worldwide would just be inaccurate given the recent update to her certifications in Canada and the US doubling her previous total in both. And while streaming units may play apart in these new certifications, majority of them have not been updated since the early to mid 2000s, so it isn't unrealistic to assume pure sales attribute to majority of those amounts. Her record sales were reported as 118 million back in 2010.^[1] StatsFreak (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's because of streaming that her certified sales in the US and even in Canada went up that much. Her true sales should be right around the 160 million mark.--Harout72 (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

StatsFreak If you have any sources for Beyonce’s claimed sales being between 160M to 200M, please provide them here. A figure like 180M I would personally prefer, considering the 200M claimed sales of Taylor Swift who have 238 M total available certifications.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Beyoncé's current certified sales do not support a 200 million claim based some of her recent certifications are streaming supported, then Taylor Swift should be dropped for consistency of rules. Taylor first charted in 2006 (9 years after Beyoncé) and a majority of her sales are heavily supported by streaming. She should be in the 150-180 million sales claim since her certs are higher than Beyoncé's updated numbers by only 15.4 million. TJ 21:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC) TJ 21:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Streaming figures make things harder than ever. In varying degrees, affects artists of past generations as well; others more than others. Some of her albums sales seems are closer to Adele, which dominated physical sales in almost all markets; but seems is not bad idea reconsidering lowering Taylor's sales, like Beyoncé. Much like Drake, Rihanna, or nearly all acts since 2000s, have heavily streaming figures in large scales, when actual copies sold are lower as suggests third-party measurement firms like OCC or Nielsen (both markets who makes the different of millions in this game). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, but Taylor is much stronger in streams than Beyoncé. Her claimed sales should be listed as 175 million as referenced by this previously used source (https://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/09/taylor-made-%E2%80%9880s-sounds).

In 2021, according to Power 99 Radio, Taylor was reportedly the second most streamed artist in the US with only 1.9 billion streams less than Drake’s 8.6 billion streams.

• https://www.power991fm.com/2022/01/13/taylor-swift-accounts-for-1-of-every-50-u-s-album-sales-how-she-drake-bts-more-dominate-music/

Variety reported Taylor’s 1989 album was supported by 220 million streams its first-week of release in the US.  

• https://variety.com/2020/music/news/taylor-swift-evermore-sells-million-first-week-1234867490/

The first-week sales for Red (Taylor’s Version) were supported by 303 million streams as reported by the NY Times.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/22/arts/music/taylor-swift-red-taylors-version-billboard-chart.html

By comparison, the NY Times reported Beyoncé’s Lemonade’s first-week sales were supported by 115 million streams in the US.

- https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/arts/music/beyonce-lemonade-chart-sales.html

The NY Times also reported her Renaissance album’s first-week sales were supported by 179 million streams.

• https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/08/arts/music/beyonce-renaissance-billboard-chart.html#:~:text=The%20Charts-,Beyonc%C3%A9's%20'Renaissance'%20Dominates%20the%20Album%20and%20Singles%20Charts,top%20of%20the%20Hot%20100

Let’s be consistent with our definitions for listed claimed sales based on certified units supported by streaming. If Beyoncé’s 222.7 million units supports 160 million in claimed sales, then Taylor’s 238.1 million units should support 175 million in claimed sales.

~~ TJ 04:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree to lower down Swift's position. And if there is no any other opinion. Let's lower Taylor Swift's position to 175m Sales. I'm the one who found that source also. Thanks. Politsi (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was on Feb 8, 2019 the article began using the 200m figure for Taylor Swift. Back then, Taylor's total available certifications were only 201.1M. I'm astonished to see that some artists enjoy such privilege. We have Kanye West, another artist with 160m claimed sales, who charted three years before Taylor Swift but is yet to have 14.1M more than she. What are we going to do with his claims? TheWikiholic (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see it. That was kind of hasty upgrade/inclusion. Judging third-party reports, seems there is a slightly difference of artists in the streaming era. Some of them actually sold large physical units (actual copies sold) compared to others but only in terms of the era. Taylor seems to be in the middle, as some of her format albums actually sold millions in the States but many of them lesser compared to the certifications. West seems to be part of the more oriented streaming-certs rather than physical; looking at his albums discography, for example Ye was certified Gold in Sep-2021 by the RIAA, when it actually sold 85,000 units in its first-week (June) and kept descending in the format. The same pattern is present in Drake, Rihanna and many others. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Politsi I support your lowering Swift to 175 million sales claim. @TheWikiholic In response to your question for Kanye West, at 251.2 million in certified units I would recommend claimed sales of 175 million for him too. ~~ TJ 05:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheWikiholic I can't believe it, you're still remember when I raise her claim. If you feel disagree with my action regarding with Swift's 200m, why don't you tell something?. So far, only Harout and me who consistently handle the list. I'm surprise that you guys watching this list in silent. I still waiting for Harout response, but I supposed putting Swift with only 170m. Is the best idea. Politsi (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certifications issued after 2016 are in some cases more than 75% streaming generated. However, those certifications issued before 2016 are more than 75% Download generated. The year 2016 was a major transitory year, certifications switching from being Download generated to Streaming generated. Taylor Swift has 99 million certified units for her singles issued by the RIAA until end of 2015, those are heavily Download generated. Her album 1989 was certified 3x Platinum by the RIAA in November 2014, just a month after its release, and had sold 3.6 million units by the end of 2014. That's not an album that reached 3x Platinum that year based on Streaming. Her 2014 single "Shake It Off", was certified in November of 2014 by the RIAA at 4x Platinum, had sold 3.4 million units by end of 2014. That is also not a certified sales generated by Streaming. Those are just two examples. Also, when Politsi added the 200 million claimed figure for Swift, her certified sales was only 201 million, the 175 million was also kept. Now her certified sales are 238 million. I would support adding the 175 million back next to the 200 million. As for Beyonce, her recent certifications are heavily Streaming generated, she has only 35 million units certified for singles before 2016. Yes some of her certifications are retroactively certified, but mainly helped by Streaming to reach the current certification levels.--Harout72 (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is making generalizations about Beyoncé's updated sales records without providing any real assessment on which of her 70+ new certifications are retroactive or what percentage is actually based on streaming. For example, 26% of Lemonade's first-week sales were streaming generated. Her sales were 653,000 with 485,000 pure sales supported by 115 million streams. For her latest album Renaissance only 31% were streaming generated. Her sales were 275,000 with 190,000 pure sales supported by 179 million streams. It was over 10 years many of her records to be re-certified retroactively, and if her streaming numbers have barely increased from 2016 to 2022 it is clear Beyoncé is not an artist where over 75% of her sales are streaming generated. We need a fair and detailed assessment for Beyoncé's updated sales. We can at least be collaborative and provide access to resources or links to tools so that other users willing to do so can conduct a fair assessment and verification of Beyoncé's updated records. ~~ TJ 13:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@TJ What's your poin? I think, Harout's explanation already good enough to show the reason why we let Taylor Swift hang out with Mariah, Whitney, and Celine in the table. She deserve it. As for Beyonce. The new claim of 160m is good enough for her at this moment. Politsi (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to ask how many certified sales does it take for Michael Bolton to be listed under 75 million sales claim? Thank you. Loibird90 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He needs to have 40.1 million certified units as he's begun charting in 1983. His available certified sales are 38.4 million so far. What's the source that puts him with 75 million records? Post it here, once he's at 40.1 million with his certified sales, I'll put him up on the list.--Harout72 (talk) 00:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources for I found for the 75 million claim:

• https://www.musichall.org/events/Grammy-Award-Winner-Michael-Bolton • https://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/2019030170324/michael-bolton-talks-challenges-faced-aspiring-singer/%3fviewas=amp • https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/5649700/michael-bolton-age-net-worth/amp/ Loibird90 (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the other sources I also found:

https://deadline.com/2017/08/michael-bolton-honest-trailers-andy-signore-emmys-interview-news-1202151880/amp/

https://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/2022/05/michael-bolton-is-back-in-the-spotlight-as-a-contestant-on-nbcs-american-song-contest.html%3foutputType=amp/amp/ Loibird90 (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Between 11/11/2022 and 8/9/2022, Beyoncé's solo catalogue was given a massive certification update by Music Canada. I believe the database was just updated with the plaques from November. I think this warrants an update to the outdated 3M figure. I estimated the total sales to be at around 6.580 million, but I could be mistaken.

https://musiccanada.com/gold-platinum/?_gp_search=%20Beyonce Everm4e (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The total for Canada is 5.405 million certified units, not 6.580 million. Some of the certifications are certified with older certification levels (Platinum being 40,000 units).--Harout72 (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I should point out that her albums were re-certified as well, most likely with the corresponding certification levels. IASF is 5× Platinum from 3×, 4 is 2× Platinum from Gold, B'Day is 2× Platinum from 1x, BEYONCÉ is 3× Platinum from 1×, and lastly Dangerously In Love is 3× Platinum. Everm4e (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I actually found more retroactively posted certs by Music Canada, so the total is 6.975 million units. Harout72 (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harout. Based on Beyonce's discussion above. Let's put Taylor Swift with 170m claim. https://abc.com/shows/new-years-rockin-eve/news/performers/taylor-swift-world-premiere-music-video-out-of-the-woods-on-new-years-rockin-eve-with-ryan-seacreast-2016-151222 she can get back her 200m claim sales when she reach 350m in her certified Sales. Thanks. Politsi (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can add that next to the 200 million, just like we had the 175 million and 200 million listed together before. I also provided explanation above, in case you want to read it. Harout72 (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've been extensively digging into the archived discussions regarding the standards used on this list, specifically the standards of percentage and the verifiability of sales from artists before 1958.

The entire "Definitions" and "Standards" sections on this article probably shouldn't exist. It strikes me as both inelegant and obtuse to clutter the body of the article with information that really ought to be kept to talk pages. Really, I can't help but feel that the section's existence is representative of a broader problem with this article's clarity and readability.

I'm also extremely concerned because of the initial caveat in this section - that 15 artists who would otherwise be eligible for this list are excluded on a technicality.

Surely there is some methodology we can use that attempts to list a range of possible sales numbers for artists whose records are difficult to verify by modern standards. In particular, I cannot understand how one justifies the exclusions of Crosby (whose potential range of 200-300 million records could put him at the top of this list) and Sinatra, who has an estimated 150 million records sold according to the header of his article.

What is the argument for accepting only music recording certification system numbers? Of course these systems are incredibly useful, reliable sources, but outright refusing to accept sources other than these that meet WP:RS standards sets a different standard than agreed upon wiki guidelines. For artists who were active before the advent of these certification systems, it is not only acceptable, but necessary to use other reliable sources that attest to sales numbers.

To use Crosby as an example, his 1960 "First Citizen of Record Industry" award for selling 200 million units establishes an absolute minimum range for how many records he had sold 60 years ago. Here's a newspaper article we can use as a source. What reason is there not to accept a reliable source from the Desert Sun Newspaper for sales data like this?

To top this off, these issues were brought up by users User:ChrisTheDude and User:Bencherlite a full decade ago when this article failed to become a featured list candidate. It seems like certain issues haven't been fixed, and I'm worried based on the edit history that User:Harout72 is being overly protective of changes being made to the article. Pacack (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]