Talk:List of best-selling albums worldwide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

40, 50 million? Where are these numbers coming from?

The USA is not the world.

Contents

[edit] Double albums

Sales of double albums are counted twice in the list. This methodology brings some problems:

1. Saturday Night Fever was released in 1977 as a double vynil album, but it occupies only one CD. The same happens to Frampton Comes Alive. Shouldn't we count the number of albums sold instead of the number of discs, to avoid these problems? By the way, I think RIAA counts them as single disc albums...

2. Saturday Night Fever, Frampton Comes Alive, HIStory, Billy Joel's Greatest Hits 1 & 2, Physical Graffiti and The Beatles (White Album) alums are listed as double albums. But there are some double albums -- which are still double albums after their release as a CD -- listed as single albums (such as The Wall, The Beatles 1962-1966 and 1967-1970). This puts them in notable disadvantadge; for example, The Wall would be counted as a 40-million seller (as much as Saturday Night Fever) if its sales were counted twice. Wouldn't it be simpler to count the album sales instead of disc sales?

- Pink Floyds "Wall" is counted as a double album, at least on the RIAA list. It's RIAA certification jumped from 11 million to 22 million as soon as the RIAA changed their rules for double albums! I do, however, agree that double albums should be counted as one album, unless it's a boxed set that contains two (or more) diffrent albums, although, even then, maybe they should be counted as 1 sale too.

-- Pink Floyd's "The Wall" is not counted as a double album in Wikipedia's list. It is certified 23x platinum in US for sales of 11.5 million albums nationwide, so RIAA counts it as a double album. Notice that this number refers to sales inside US territory. But RIAA counts "Saturday Night Fever" as a one-disc album (certified 15x platinum for sales of 15 million copies), although it was originally released as a double album. The same happens to "Frampton Comes Alive", which sold 6 million copies in US and is certified 6x platinum.

As Wikipedia's article lists worldwide sales and Pink Floyd's "The Wall" worldwide sales are over 20 million double albums (some sources say 27 million), it should be listed as a 40 million+ seller, according to the methodology adopted. As far as I am concerned, "Saturday Night Fever" sold some 40 million albums worldwide (15 million in US alone), so it would be a 80 million seller if two discs are counted for each album... anyway, as the article lists only 40 million+ sellers, it wouldn't change a thing for "Saturday Night Fever". But "The Wall" is clearly in disadvantage.

This page uses sources. You can't have a bit of one source (RIAA claims) and a bit of the other (Floyds world wide claims). The highest avalible source here for the wall states 20 million plus. As no source claims more than that, then only the highest one can be used, no "look at the this other source, so push that one up".

-- There is nothing wrong with the sources. They appear to be correct. By the way, RIAA certifies albums for US sales only. Although RIAA numbers are reliable, they cannot be used as a source for a page which lists worldwide album sales, as the US market represent part of the global market (for example, RIAA certifies "Saturday Night Fever" for 15 million copies sold in US, but worldwide numbers are above 40 million).

All I'm saying is that "The Wall", which has sold over 20 million copies according to the page source, is a double album. But it is listed as a one-disc album (the absence of the asterisk denotes that). As this page counts the number of discs sold and not the number of albums, "The Wall" is in clear disadvantage in comparison to other double albums. Let me give an example.

The source for Michael Jackson's HIStory (http://www.mjinf.co.uk/HIStory/HIStory.htm) informs that this album sold at least 16 million copies worldwide (official source). According to the methodology used by the site, its sales are doubled (16 million albums sold x 2 = 32 million discs sold), so HIStory is listed as a 30 million+ seller.

The same should happen to "The Wall". Its source (http://www.mjni.com/news/details.aspx?ArticleNo=508) says the album sold 20 million+ copies worldwide. So, 20 million albums x 2 discs per album = 40 million discs sold. Therefore, "The Wall" should be listed as a 40 million+ seller.

Or History should be moved down, in line with source!

[edit] Thriller

Thriller sold 51 million as of about 1993, a long, long time ago. To date it has sold up to 60 million. In 1997, SME confirmed sales of 54 million for Thriller. In 2002, Michael said Thriller is closing in on 60 million. In 2004, on mjjsource.com they claimed sales of 59 million. The Guiness figure is dated and has not been updated for ages. Guiness needs to catch up, and regarding movie budgets, highest grossing films, highest selling albums and singles etc. they are falling behind and haven't got it right for years. Street walker 11:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please Quote source that will be beneficial and will help us too.
I have removed the personal comment which was given in reply that had no stuff to talk logically than to spill mud. That person was using AOL IP and hadn't even signed or or cared to make an login. Please maintain a decency and this is not place to solve personal issues or hatred against some artist. In good faith, Vivek 02:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As of june 2006, Italic textBack in Black Italic textOfficially became the best selling album of any kind of all time. Please update this on your page

Source? for back in black is best selling album of all time

Actually, Thriller has only sold 47 million copies. The article is wrong.

The official MJ site [1] (under bio) says 44 million.

The official Michael Jackson website must be wrong because the Guinness World Records says Thriller has sold 104 million. 59.100.23.16 11:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that de offical Michael Jackson wemsite are more importat that Guiness Record...

[edit] Eagles Greatest Hits

The Eagles: Their Greatest Hits cannot possibly be the 3rd best-selling albums of all-time. That album is only sold in the US. The album that is sold outside of the US is "The Very Best of the Eagles". It's got a different title, different cover, different track list. It's not the same album, so you can't add the sales of Very Best Of to Their Greatest Hits. This needs to be looked into.

[edit] Something is missing

What about Madonna's True Blue, Like a Virgin and The Immaculate Collection?

I added thoses albums. I can't believe all her albums were completely ignored from this list. As well as the albums you mentioned, Ray of Light sold enough to be in the top 50.

[edit] crap

This page is baloney. All it does is repete over the top sales claims made by fans and record companies. The Backstreet Boys debut album selling as much as the beatles top selller? their second one selling more than any beatles album?? what a load of nonsence!

Just because someone outsold the Beatles doesn't make it crap. The Beatles were the biggest selling act at one stage (1960s) but since then there have been loads of artist who have outsold them. All the figures on the page are official. Live with it, your beloved white Beatles aren't the biggest thing in the world anymore.

Incorrect. The Beatles albums sold on vinyl, tape and cd, not to mention 8 track. The Backstreet Boys , who only sold at one scoop of the pot, are nowhere near them. These sales figures are not "official" they are reported sales by the record companies. They are given for publisty purposes, hence all the confliting research. It's you who needs to live with it. Furthermore, The Beatles are not my favorite act of all-time, but they are much bigger than the backstreet boys, shania twain and anyone else on this list when factual information (i.e actual sales charts, sales of backcatlogue reports, etc) is looked at rather than figures that are just given. Also, i find it hard to belive Led Zeppelin sold over tiwce as many albums (as their figures suggest here) in the 1990s, than they did in thr '70's and '80s combined. Complete fabrication. If you think more people own a copy of "millienum" than "sgt. pepper" and a lot of other albums by people like the beatles and elvis presley, then you're the one who is not living with the truth. Also why mention they were white?, that's not relevant. This list is a load of baloney and is a hot contender for the worst article on wikipedia.

What's with this guy ha?? why doesn't he like this article?? just because the Backstreet Boys album "Millennium" sold more then any Beatles album, Man! BSB is not the only artist to sell more then any Beatles Album, there are a tons of artists like AC/DC, Eagles, Bee Gees, Whitney Houston, Meat Loaf, Michael Jackson, Shania Twain, Celine Dion etc. who have sold more then the Beatles. Ya it is true that the Beatles were the Kings of the 60s or the 70s. But what about Micheal Jackson? he is the king of Pop of all time. He has sold more then any Beatles album, So doesn't that make him better then the Beatles. And what about AC/DC they also sold more then any Beatles album. So does that makes the Beatles just a crap?? Get real man, BSB once ruled the world in the late 90s and in the early 2000s, They hold the record for fastest selling album worldwide. Like the Beatles they also have millions of female fans worldwide. The are only group who have that since the Beatles. You have to start live with the truth. BSB's "Millennium" has sold more then the Beatles "Sgt. Pepper". Both of these albums are fine classic and will be remembered forever. Both were nominated for Album of the year at the Grammy's. So stop being angry with this article. I added this list to this site and it's offical by RIAA not by the artists websites.--50cent4 19:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

50 cent 4 talk for yourself, not for everyone else too. You don't own wikipedia, neither do you rule the world.

who ever wrote this comment about me, F*** U--50cent4 10:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

grow up, stop acting like a baby, you always cry and whimper when someone disagrees with you and try to make people look stupid (like your hard man act here is trying to do), but it fails, it stops a dollar short of 100 cents, however, who ever wrote the comment was bang on the money!! --Mr.Sloan 01:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


The RIAA get their figures from, the record companies. Secondly this is not an RIAA list anyway, not that it makes any diffrence. "Millineum" has not outsold "Sgt Pepper". The Backstreet Boys success in North America was not repeated in most of the rest of the world. They didn't "rule the world" as you put it, Britney Spears, Eminem and Nsync all outsold them at points and i don't see such ludicrous claims made for their albums, Britney's "Baby, One More Time" sold as many as all the BSB albums in North America and was much more successful in Europe. This list is fabricated and no matter how much you cry and whimper like a injured little doggie, or preach about these figures like some heavy Christian does about the bible, you can't alter the facts. Also, The sales for AC/DC's album are far streched, many more albums have been more successfull, regradless of the sales claims. And for the record, the fastest selling album of all-time belongs to the Beatles 1, not the Backstreet Boys, and while he may have the biggest selling album ever, Michael Jackson is not the overall number 1 singer. Elvis Presley has far outsold him.

I don't like this line: "Estimates are thus often made by fan sites". There are obviously problems and inadequacies in the RIAA's counting techniques, but to say that fans can do a better job is preposterous. --Madchester 16:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

AC/DC's Back in Black album has gone "only" double platinum in Germany in 1999 and is only certified Gold in the UK (2 huge markets). I am sure it has had considerable backsales but even if those account to 1 or 2 million in the Uk (which I doubt) you do not get to an additional accumulation of some 21 milion outside the US. Unless every Australian owns a copy there is no way it has sold 42 million!

It depends how well the reasearch is done. It is possible (probably rare, however) a fan site can do a better job than the RIAA. UrbanCowboyGB 23:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

RIAA covers US only and is based on shipment to retailers - i have looked at RIAA archives on thewebsite and nowhere can i find a list covering the world. I anyone has got that list can it be posted (not from the MJ fan website)?


The Backstreet Boys are far bigger acts than Nsync has ever been at any part of the world, and if you add worldwide sales they are also far bigger acts than Eminem, and are near ties with mrs. Spears. Infact The Backstreet boys BEGAN releasing albums in Europe, so how could nsync, and Spears be far more successful in this part of the world? I actually live in Europe, and they were no where near the phenomenon the BSB was back in the late 90's and early 00's.

Millennium has outsold any Nsync or Spears album by a mile, infact so has Backstreet's Back. Perhaps check the Backstreet Boys article for info on their phenomenal ticket, album and endorsements sales.

Not true. A look at the sales charts world-wide shows the backstreet boys sold nowhere near what they claim, certainly not as much as Britney Spears has. Just because the Backstreet Boys began releasing albums in Europe, doesn't mean they were more successful there than Spears has been, it just means they didn't get a record deal in their homeland at that time. Many bands were making records before the backtreet boys, doesn't mean we can use a similar argument that says "that means they must have all sold more than them". Spears has had a lot more chart success across Europe, as well as the U-S-A. Furthermore, Britney Spears is still selling out tours now, still having more endorsements today than the Backstreet Boys ever did, whereas the Backstreet Boys are now on the list of "Has-Been Boy Bands" and hardly anyone in Europe, The USA or anywhere else buys their records anymore! .. oh and guess what, I live in Europe too, so stop trying to tell me Europe went gaga for the BSB back in the day.. because I was there...

This is not you personal diary that you may write whatever you feel like. So better stop making personal comments and if you don't even have courage to undersign then better don't edit WikiPedia. In good faith, Vivek 02:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


It annoys me when people are like the above poster. These are TALK PAGES, not ARTICLES so therefore it is ok to discuss point of view here, that's what this page is for to FIND OUT what is real and what isn't so the ARTCLES are written correctly. I hope you understand and can see the big difrence between the two. Also new editors will not know about the signing, so rather than ASSUME they do, tell them in a normal, nice way, not try and make out they are "scared" too (talk about personal comments and putting what you like here eh?) --- what's this "courage" comment? We are not in the WWE or pro boxers, we don't need to turn this into a Rick Flair VS Hulk Hogan event. Thank you! 74.65.39.59 13:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think what you guys fail to forget is like in the 1960's with the Beatles, the 1990's were the same with the Backstreet Boys. Every girl bought those albums for the same reasons that girls bought Baetles albums, because they wanted to marry the members of the groups. I know the Beatles also had a male audience, but their are more people in the world today than their were in 1967 when Sgt. Pepper's came out. We also must remember that a lot of the Beatles album sales came from singles and EP's, which are no where near as popular as they were in the 60's. AOR became popular in the 70's and we have never looked back. I love the Beatles and I love Sgt. Pepper, but I remember in Middle and High school (i'm only 21...when BSB was everywhere, it was nuts. It is completely feasable to say that BSB sold more than the Beatles. They were also huge around the world also. And remember we are talking about the RIAA (the Recording Industry Association of America), which means they cover American album sales. In America albums like Led Zeppelin IV and Back In Black have had more staying power than any Beatles album as those albums have stuck with the newer metal fans. Hence those albums have sold just as well today as they did in the 1970's. I mean Dark Side Of The Moon is still on the Billboard charts today and it was released in 1973. Bands like Floyd, Zeppelin, & AC/DC are just more popular over here than the Beatles. That is the main reason the Beatles are so far down on the list. Along with that and that little girls in this country love their teen idols. As for Shania, country is HUGE in the Southern part of the USA and is growing to the North. Kenny Chesney just sold out Madison Square Garden (something not even though possible 5-10 years ago). So country sales are also going to be skyrocketing within the next few years as country moves more and more mainstream. Now according to the RIAA's website these are the top 20 selling albums of all time.

1. The Eagles - Their Greatesy Hits 1971-1975 - 29 Mil 2. Michael Jackson - Thriller - 27 Mil 3. Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin IV - 23 Mil 3. Pink Floyd - The Wall - 23 Mil 5. AC/DC - Back In Black - 21 Mil 5. Billy Joel - Greatest Hits Vol. I & II - 21 Mil 7. Garth Brooks - Double Live - 20 Mil 7. Shania Twain - Come On Over - 20 Mil 9. The Beatles - The White Album - 19 Mil 9. Fleetwood Mac - Rumours - 19 Mil 11. Boston - Boston - 17 Mil 11. Whitney Houston - The Bodyguard - 17 Mil 13. The Beatles - 1967-1970 - 16 Mil 13. Garth Brooks - No Fences - 16 Mil 13. The Eagles - Hotel California - 16 Mil 13. Hootie & The Blowfish - Cracked Rear View - 16 Mil 13. Elton John - Greatest Hits - 16 Mil 13. Led Zeppelin - Physical Graffiti - 16 Mil 13. Alanis Morissette - Jagged Little Pill - 16 Mil 20. The Beatles - 1962-1966 - 15 Mil 20. The Bee Gees - Saturday Night Fever - 15 Mil 20. Guns N' Roses - Appetite For Destruction - 15 Mil 20. Pink Floyd - Dark Side Of The Moon - 15 Mil 20. Santana - Supernatural - 15 Mil 20. Bruce Springsteen - Born In The U.S.A. - 15 Mil


[edit] Sources

My problem is that for some artists the data is taken from fansites mainly and even a post on a talk page. That can hardly be counted as evidence! Especially the talk page! Come on, I can post whatever I want on a forum, that does not constitute evidence...

[edit] Recommendation

Follow the format used in List of best-selling music artists. The article groups articles by units sold (250 million +, 100 million + , etc.) This way it gives more room for any margin of error. --Madchester 04:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the article to align it with the List of best-selling music artists format. Please fill in each entry with the appopriate sources. Thanks --Madchester 06:23, 20 January 2006 (UT--161.74.11.24 11:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)C)
I don't like it and I don't understand it. The reason the best-selling music artists list was chnaged to this format is because there was too many disputes about how many records each artist has sold and what the order should be. However, with this list, all the sales figures are official and there hasn't been any major disputes about the order of the albums. The older style was much better than this one. It had image, a consise list, it looked better and everything. Street walker 05:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I would argue that the previous layout was less asthetically pleasing; it was simply a long list with excessive wiki-linking. But more importantly, that list lacked references and simply used some umbrella statement "Sales figures listed here are disputed depending on which source you believe" to justify the positions listed. That's just not acceptable, per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. According to the Manual of Style: "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting." The current layout facilitates the inclusion of proper citations and references, which is the most important thing in improving the article. --Madchester 05:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Madchester, margin of error? This are exactly the kind of pages that encourage vandalism. I have no idea what your point is. But the other list was much easier to read, much easier to digest and find info and most importantly, less controversial looking. I bet you this page will end up being like List of best-selling music artists , 'one of the most vandalized pages on wikipedia' (& very boring looking). I think this page should be reverted to the other format. I agree with Streetwalker. Any views from others? --161.74.11.24 11:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again, according to the manual of style, layout and presentation are secondary to clear unbiased writing. The List of best-selling music artists was in much worse shape a few months ago when it was simply a Top 150 or 200 list ranking total album sales. [2], [3], etc. The current format actually holds editors accountable for their entries, by ensuring that they provide sources.--Madchester 14:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please someone to put the first format or I'll do it myself this one is inappropriate. This is albums sales not artists sales, there's no place for such disputes. Also please remove "Album claimed to have sold..." just because ALBUM sales could confirmed thanks to certifications (diamond, platinium, gold,...) in each country so error estimation is weak. Readerweb 15:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Madchester, citing refrences it not an excuse or a good enough excuse totally change the format. The 1st format can accomodate references. C'mon, look at that page yourself! --161.74.11.24 16:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The list is good in the new way and the sales for these individual albums are no more "official" than the sales totals that are made up from them for each artist. This list is just as questionable and open to debate as any sales list, be is single albums or artists totals. --165.54.11.21 16:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC

This page was made by me and I did a very well job but then the page got ruined and then again it's right back to the way it was. it's the way it should be. Thanks to everyone who agree to keep the page my way. It's looks way better. The page should always be this way. Thank You --50cent4 10:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

May I plese refer you to this: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Note the warning that 'If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it'. At the moment this article is poor because it is unsourced. The changing to a 'grouped' format would help IF sources are conflicitng or can only provide vague figures - as with the List of best-selling music artists. I would support the current format IF a reliable body could be quoted for all of these claims, or for each one individually. However, you should remember that people have the right - and will - change pages once you have created them Robdurbar 11:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, based on your behaviour in removing text from the talk page, I think I'll revert the main article to the 'goruped' format too Robdurbar 11:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Although, I wonder if there might be a compromise here. Howe about grouping the albums, and then including an 'estimate sales figure' within this. For example:

Albums claimed to have sold 40 million or more units


Artist Album Year of release Genre Estiamted Sales Figure Source
AC/DC Back In Black 1980 Hard rock 42 million
Bee Gees Saturday Night Fever* 1973 Soundtrack, Disco 40 million
Eagles Their Greatest Hits (1971-1975) 1976 Country rock 41 million
Michael Jackson Thriller 1982 R&B, pop 60 million MJ stats site

They could then be sorted alphabetically - as above - or by sales figure, within the groupings. Thoughts? Robdurbar 11:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This could work but the page will look just like the best selling music artists page. I don't know man. My edits are being removed everytime so...--50cent4 15:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll revert the main article to the 'old' format. untill I hear others thoughts this new format won't be excepted.--50cent4 15:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this could work too. any thoughts??

  1. Michael Jackson - Thriller - 60 million (1982) #

It could work--202.168.255.2 15:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and i do understand the differences between the 2 pages; the idea with the compromise is that we have a figure, and we show that its open to interpretation Robdurbar 23:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What about Tommy James with Crimson & Clover, Crystal Blue Persuation and a whole slue of others? He sold 100 million records and he doesn't even appear on any of the lists??! wtf?

Like I said before, there is some albums missing on the list. Even RIAA says they couldn't get all the albums sales. They managed to get about 200 albums worldwide sales. I put the top 100 on the list. The rest is over 100. Thank You--50cent4 10:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 50 cent 4 but your non stop claims your list was dead on is not true and that's why the format was changed, and any reverts will continue to be put back to the newer format. You even admit yourself that the list is missing albums and it cannot be used as a definitive list, only a list of claims, like the newer format illustrates.

I believe we should go back to indicated sales per album versus this group listing. Sales claims should be substantiated and not taken from fan sites! Info from official bands/artists sites, certification authorities, record companies and official press releases only. I also think we should not be restricted to the top 100 only!

No, indicated sales per album figures by official sites, certification authorities, record companies, and press releases are no more accurate than a lot of fan sites, hence this group listing here and on the best selling music artists article. If they were more accurate then there would be no debate. The group listing is the best and really only way to do such a list!!

Claims by fansites are driven by emotions rather than facts and should therefore not be used. If your claiming that official sites, certification authorities, record companies, and press releases are not accurate (and i am not saying that those are always a 100% accurate - neither is the verdic of a jury for that matter) then we may aswell forget about the whole issue. Whoever has got the most vived imagination can claim their favorite has got best selling album and we all tag along!

Yeah, and official web sites and record companies far fetch the figures for publicity. As for press releases they are written by people who have the same emotions for singers and bands they like, just as people who make fan sites, it's no different.

That leaves official certication levels only. But based on your though process than the whole list has no value what so ever, as no source can substanciate it.

I guess you guys can do better then me. Thank You --50cent4 10:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boston

Boston (album) - according to that, it has 17+ million copies, yet here it is listed in the 20+ million copies. Either it should be moved down to 15+ million, or the correct information should be put in the album article. Andymc 23:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queen

I removed this 'The sales of the two Queen Greatest Hits albums include sales of a multiple-cd box set that contain both albums, each sale of this set adds 1 sale to both albums' these are complilation albums in their own right and are not accounted for within these sales GH 1 + 2 has gone Plat in US, 4xplat in New Zealand etc. Platinum Collection has gone 3 million in europe early 2005. PC has sold 1,4 million in the UK alone. If added then GH would be well above 30 million and GHII be above 20 million. For the record sales level GHII sales level does inc the US canadian sales of classic queen as this was considered that regions version of GHII

Those figures you gave do not add up to 30 million as you claim, most sources state that the 25 million sales is for the sales of both greatest hits albums combined, so no way has Greatest Hits One sold 30 million without the sales of the boxed sets.

I have removed that line again, not because I believe it to be untrue, from personal research I have done, but because their are claims online that the album sold that many and until such a time I can collect all my research and archive it and put it forward, this list will remain based on various claims, not the facts, so therefore I have reverted the article.

Queen Greatest hits 1 sold over 18 millions copies in only 13 countries (without counting the sales of Platinium collection and Greatest hits 1 and Greatest hits 2 as box set), which aren´t updated in some cases.

 Some sales:

 UK: 5100 k
 USA: 8700 K
 Korea: 530 k
 Australia: 810 k
 Brazil: 250 k

[edit] RIIA??

RIIA never released a official data of the best selling worldwide albums, that was one of RIIA's member who gave a fan some of the informations about the worldwide sales of the albums. It list got on the internet and everyone begun to think that it's the official dat of the best selling albums of all time. so do not try to copy that list just find links and put those albums back where they belongs. Thank You --50cent4 12:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

50cent4 it was you who put that so called list on in te first place and yelled at us al whe we took it off, so I can't understand waht you are saying!

It doesn't matter --50cent4 11:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it dosen't,so why keep going on about it? ...

[edit] Dire Straits

Have moved Brothers in Arms to the 25 million and more section as the source itself states it's sold 25m. --Dandelions 17:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Immaculate Collection sales

In this article, it says that Madonna's The Immaculate Collection album has sold at least 25 million WW, but the source says just 23 million.

The boy band New Kids On The Block should be on the list, because the albums "Step by step" and "Hangin Tough" have both sold more than 15 million copies, and the band have sold more than 70 million albums total.

I don't know if there's a source for that, but I think I know where the problem you see with the Immaculate Collection comes from. It had sold 23m in 2000 according to WB, it has been selling steadily (and quite a lot!) since, popping in and out of charts worldwide, going Diamond in the US and going for its 11 plat (so there are 2m in the uS alone to add for sure), ever since (it was back in the top 40 in the UK a couple of weeks ago, and it still is top 100, bound torebound up soon). Sure a source stating more (as it's sold between 500K and 1m a year since)is easily found.


Here it is, mazon, who INVARIABLY match their data with the IFPI (to the point that they are more reliable than specialised magazines like Rolling Stone, see the 2005 end-of-year chart published by Amazon 3 weeks in advance of the IFPI, basically ,atching the IFPI with very, very tiny exceptions, alwayd within the 100K!) says'26 million copies' for the Immaculate Collection [4]. Not as official as the IFPI, but certainly much more reliable than the fansites and even forum posts used for an awful lot of other artists on this list. At least Amazon (where the information is accredited in this review) has a a very good record of sales tracking (actually, amongst the non-official sourcesnd by Official I accept only reord companies, the IFPI andhe Guinness Book of Records) it has BY FAR the BEST record.


yes, Amazon are reliable for the simple fact that they are the biggest global retailer of records, and soource their data, not from the iFPI, but directly from the record companies , where the IFPI themselves get the data, because of the nature of their business, they need to know how many copies of an album are in circulation, new and used.
  • OH YES! Because Amazon.com is always reliable. It's never wrong. Infact, NO source is wrong, as long as it's swelling Madonna's album sales and making Mariah's album sales smaller! I'm sick of this feud that the fans have created and the Madonna "trolls" need to grow up because they start stuff the most with Mariah "lambs". BTW, that is an UNRELIABLE source, not from "the IFPI". It is an article from an "Amazon.com like" website that was written by a Madonna troll/Mariah hater. Just scroll down the part that says "Madonna rules the universe, Mariah Carey is really a man".
  • Madonna has NOT sold 26 million of TIC. It's sales are still at 23 million.

[edit] Raphael

"Ayer, Hoy, Siempre" has sold more than 50 millions copies. He won the 'Uranium disc' and Raphael himself talk about that in his auto-biography. Please, check the facts and do not delete it.

[edit] Patience...

The 4 major distributors of music in the world are currently finalizing the accounting records of almost 150 different major labels absorbed by these companies in the last ten years. Given time, they will release more accurate sales data from major music markets for all of their biggest sellers.

At the very least, we'll have the RIAA+IFPI+CRIA+ARIA+RIAJ numbers finalized very soon.

[edit] Pink Floyd - The Wall

How the hell can the wall sell 21 million copies in the US alone and out sell dark side of the moon in the US and still not make at least the 40 mil mark. I agvree its a double album but there should be some consistency in this list.

[edit] Destructive Editing

Somebody went through and removed many of the artists and links that a lot of persons efforts went into adding. Here is the old list from another source: [[5]] 60.234.242.196 02:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fake RIAA List

Many are using the fake list, as reported on the Michael Jackson site [6], and spread across the net as being gospel. RIAA only deal with units sold in America, and not worldwide. No organisation has put together a combined list. Unless an alternative source can de found, which is not a mirror to this, then suggestion is that the entries on the list that only refer to this should be removed. A comparison between 'that' list and what has been determined via Wikipedia's Users research show how non credible a resource it is.

[edit] www.everydayhit.co.uk

The data supplied is non credible as does not match the official BPI site [7]. Alternative links should be sourced also.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_best-selling_albums_worldwide_6f7b.html"