Talk:List of best-selling music artists

Coldplay

Isjadd773 Media outlets began reporting that Coldplay sold 100 million albums, rather than 100 million records, following an edit made by GustavoCza , which cited a YouTube link to the official channel of the Coldplay. It means they might have copied the wording from the Wikipedia itself. Recommend you to familiarise with WP:Circular TheWikiholic (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Variety and the British Phonographic Industry have both reported the claim a month before that edit. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 19:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

BPI doesn't track the record sales outside of UK, and both BPI and Variety reporting the same thing on the same day (on May 5, 2021) doesn't look like a coincidence, but it is obvious that they are reporting what the record label released. Besides that it's common among media to report record sales as album sales. So no need to add any footnotes when we have sources like BBC and EW explicitly reporting record sales instead of album sales a few days prior and after to this. TheWikiholic (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There are multiple articles from the BBC saying 100 million albums instead of records:

• https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20240624-the-reason-coldplay-are-the-21st-centurys-most-loved-band
• https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-64380094
• https://www.bbc.com/news/live/clwwy5zx0vzt?page=6
• https://www.bbc.com/mediacentre/2021/radio-2-in-concert

Pollstar, Rolling Stone and The Telegraph also have made the same claim, do you genuinely believe my little edit was so influential? That none of these media outlets have fact checked anything? You are just in denial at this point.

• https://www.rollingstone.co.uk/music/live-reviews/coldplay-live-at-wembley-chris-martin-delivers-a-masterclass-in-showmanship-21800/
• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/artists/coldplay-billion-dollar-empire/
• https://news.pollstar.com/2024/03/26/q1-chart-topper-coldplays-music-of-the-spheres-on-track-to-be-highest-grossing-band-tour-of-all-time/

And here's yet another source from before my edit was made:

• https://www.todayfm.com/podcasts/dermot-dave/could-coldplays-next-gig-be-in-offaly

GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I have already said that you can find many in the archives stating that it's common among media to report record sales as album sales. And it has been noted multiple times that media is picking wording and figures from Wikipedia, hence why we have a policy WP: Circular. TheWikiholic (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, what are you trying to prove by saying "they are reporting what the record label released"? That's literally what all outlets do, even the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI). GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 20:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Certifying bodies do not report exactly what the label report. They do an independent audit by using an independent agency and reward them certifications if the audited figures meet their thresholds. TheWikiholic (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not talking about certifications. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I already gave you three reliable sources from before my edit. It's only WP:Circular according to your own crying. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 21:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Variety is a consensus reliable source. If you take issue with their published content and/or have concerns you wish to address, you are welcome to write to their editors to seek clarifications and request retractions if its agreed than an error has been made. In the meantime, your personal opinion does not outweight consensus reliable sources, not on this article nor anywhere else. Isjadd773 (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There are several things to consider in order to handle this situation properly. One is that it is not uncommon to find news sources claiming sales figures as if they were for albums rather than records. This happens even with the highest claimed sales figures, such as the 1 billion figure for Presley (Deutsche Welle) or Jackson (United Press International).

It is also important to highlight the existence of policies such as WP:BURDEN and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS that help in handling a case like this. Without evaluating whether the 100M albums figure is exaggerated or not for Coldplay, it should be taken into account that the "Claimed sales" column should list sales estimates for records (and not albums only).

Additionally, when a change is disputed, unilateral actions without prior consensus should be avoided. For that reason, I am going to reverse the latest modification in order to restore the article to a state in which the references refer to "records" and not to "albums", and in which the uniformity of the "Claimed sales" column is preserved for all artists/bands on the List, since this disputed change adds a footnote with explanations.

I encourage that this be properly discussed while trying to reach a common consensus. Salvabl (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Coldplay have 33 billion streams on Spotify alone, scored numerous IFPI year-end entries (including two number-one albums) and are about to reach $1 billion grossed from a single tour, 100 million albums is not an exaggerated figure for them and this situation is hardly comparable to Presley and Jackson. Leave the figure without a note for the sake of uniformity but let the source be accurate and recent at least, instead of using two outdated citations. As for the band's Wikipedia article, which that user also tried to mess up, it will keep the note, as it has been there for years. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 03:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

If we assume that all 33 billion streams were generated in the USA, the world's largest music market, they would only translate to 22 million album equivalent units according to RIAA metrics. If these streams came from the UK, Germany, or other countries, the equivalent units would be even lower, as many countries do not count streams from the two most popular tracks on an album. TheWikiholic (talk) 00:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

When there is prior consensus about a source being reliable (e.g., Variety), WP:BURDEN and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is pretty much obsolete. If it were otherwise then there would be no need to establish sources being reliable in the first place. Based on what I've seen from the discussion above, the editor provided multiple reliable sources so you or another editor refusing to them is more of a case of WP:OWN and trying to say that your opinions supplant information reported by multiple reliable sources. The onus/burden falls on you to convince others and achieve consesus as to why the multiple reliable sources are wrong in this instance and you are correct and this hasn't happened yet. Isjadd773 (talk) 19:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Many artists on this list, particularly those from the 20th century, have multiple independent and reliable sources reporting higher claimed sales. However, the reliability of these sources doesn't support their inclusion. Media outlets, regardless of their credibility, often report on press releases from record labels or interviews with the artists themselves. It’s surprising to see that you, an editor who has consistently advocated for organizing the list based on available certifications, are now supporting claimed sales over verified certifications.

Lastly, none of the artists on this list are ranked purely based on album sales, except for Coldplay at present. TheWikiholic (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we should support verified certifications over claimed sales. When we focus on claimed sales, media "claiming" a different number gets included because is the main criteria on the article and the value these artist are organized in the list. Paladium (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't consider my stance contradictory. I have advocated for this article to be revamped to omit claimed sales and rank artists based on certifications due to the disputes arising from claimed sales figures, such as the case here. Nevertheless, the article currently includes claimed sales and ranks artists based on them. With that being considered, the claimed sales should at least be based on reliable sources and follow WP:RS; and figures reported by reliable sources shouldn't be removed on a whim. There should be prior consensus about errors made by reliable sources. Isjadd773 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Your position is contradictory. You're supporting the inclusion of a source claiming the artist has sold 100 million albums, even though available certifications (including albums+songs+DVD) already total 154.6 million.

Certifications don't equate to actual sales today, and the absence of certifications doesn't necessarily mean the artist hasn't sold as much as others with more certifications. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

You have a tedency to talk in circles and contradict yourself when trying to defend your position without realizing it, so there's no point in continuing this discussion. The article as a whole either needs be revamped with a set standard or deleted to avoid pointless spats over claimed sales. If there is a deletion nomination, I will support it. Isjadd773 (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Revamping an article that needs a total overhaul: An argument for fairness and objectivity:

I guess I can start this way. Very simple and readable with respect and professional courtesy to all contributor's and editor's [pro and con] on both sides of the argument. First and foremost, 2 points, the first being, record labels do not lie. Nor do they misrepresent the truth about their independent unit sales figures. This is due to the obvious fact that they have paid or are paying royalties to their respective artists based or rather depending on their sales. They cannot inflate their sales for marketing purposes. In fact, the RIAA certifies the sales from record label agencies who pay a fee to the (RIAA auditors) for all independent audited figures which come, as stated, from the record label and not any newspaper periodicals. This point should be addressed and factually revisited. As such and I have witness this; the second point that needs to be convey are the outdated and unreliable periodicals that some contributors from this page and article, get their sales figure from. These outdated news or media news editorials have distorted the verity and shroud controversy and mistrust to this best-selling listing article. This practice is wrong and should be obliterated. The contributors should be getting their sales information from reputed reliable sources including but not limited to, record labels whose veracity cannot come into question. As previously stated, record labels cannot "inflate" their sales numbers for marketing purposes. Oh yes, some wiki editors and counterparts will state that numerous artists from "the legacy 20th century" edition such as Bing Crosby whose "DECCA" Label claimed sales figures of 300 million are grossly inflated without any supporting evidence to the contrary. More and into the point, that the RCA records label or Capitol records or rather (EMI) inflated the Beatles and Elvis Presley's unit sales to reiterate, "for marketing purposes". I respectfully ask; based on what? What would be the reasoning for the record labels to inflate their respective sales numbers? for a propaganda motive? I beg to differ. We have disputed this subject endlessly without reaching any formal consensus. What this page and article has done is dispute the validity of Presley's and the Beatles billion sales claims, and thus reduce their sales numbers to 500 million for Presley and 600 million for the Beatles, while at the same time incrementing or increasing Michael Jacksons sales numbers from 350 million to 500 million based on "total available certifications". This maneuver has raised an enormity wave of protest from contributors, avid readers and musical pundits, throughout many websites and platforms who have invoked through persistence the lack of truthfulness, objectivity and sheer honesty of this best-selling listing directory. Again, I ask is this right? In fact, this article and best-selling directory has been formally accused by many contributors of becoming a "Michael Jackson fan page". This fallacy needs to be address and corrected, and we must do this if we are ever going to be a factual point of reference bounded with legitimacy and trustworthiness. I guess you will ask what do we do about the rankings based on certifications? the answer? I guess we can have two separate listings one being ranking the legacy entertainers or artists based on claimed sales and the other a ranking of modern artists based on certified units. I don't see any other way!! We cannot omit claimed sales from the past nor disregard modern based certifications. I welcome with courtesy and respect any input from any contributor as a rebuttal to this brief. Once again,thank you for giving me an opportunity for this feedback. Victor0327 (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Record labels absolutely do lie for the sake of PR, they take a claim and run with it because it makes said artist look good. The Beatles, Michael Jackson, Elvis Presley, and Bing Crosby have all been claimed by their labels/companies to have sold over a billion records several times, the problem is not the aspect of people being biased towards one artist or another, but it is based on whether the claims are verifiable. No one will take the page seriously if we use claims like that. Bing Crosby missing the amount of certifications required to be on the page based on the definitions it's had for the last decade is what prevents him from being on the page. If one artist was missing millions of certifications, then every other artist would be missing certifications. Outside of Nielsen Soundscan, Certifications are the only official method of determining how much an artist has sold, the problem is the aspect of streams resulting in inflated certifications, which will make it confusing to see an artist like Eminem being listed as selling more than the Beatles. So if this article would want to be based on accuracy, it would need to be split between 20th century acts and modern/streaming era acts, with both lists being organized based on total available certifications. Something I did notice is that every editor who has advocated for Bing Crosby's claimed sales being added in the last month or so is that they all make the same inflammatory statements regarding MJ's claimed sales or try to advocate for several other artists such as ABBA and Nana Mouskouri's highest claimed sales. Not sure where the evidence of an "enormous wave of protesters" towards MJ's claimed sales are from, but the belief that the page is an "MJ fanpage" is moot when the method that is being used for sales is applied to every artist from his era and not just MJ himself. The one person who the most vocal against increasing MJ's sales was someone who exhibited control over the page for several years, going as far as to try to ban every editor who was involved with MJ's pages from editing the page without any justification. LaughinElf (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, my friend let me begin by the stating the obvious; have you delve into other opinion sites about the subject at hand? or read other websites whereas readers voice their opinions grammatically so to speak? How about the discontentment arising on the fact that this page was repeatedly nominated for deletion? not just once but to reiterate, repeatedly. Many articles and countless books being indicative that the billion sales claims for the Beatles, Presley and perhaps Crosby, were tantamount as verifiable. Even the Guinness Book of World records which comes under attack from perhaps good contributors like you, seem to state that your argument is feeble and erroneous. Check the archives; Yes, I know, we have been over this issue countless times but are we correct going forward on this course? especially with so many articles and books as previously stated, being contrarian to your point of view. Moreover, "so you are not sure where the evidence of an enormous wave of protesters toward Michael Jackson claimed sales are from". Really? well not attacking your observation with any sarcasm, but this is very prevalent throughout many websites which stress talking points about the subject at hand. This is more than just "one person being vocal" against increasing Michael Jackson's purported astronomical sales increases". This is just an observation on my part, or maybe an experiment. But nevertheless, we must do better, for we are lacking credibility and legitimacy in this endeavor. Thank you for your feedback and response. Victor0327 (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

The page has only been nominated for 5 times, twice in 2005, once in 2006, once in 2012, and once just a few months ago. The first two were in the same year when the article was still unstable and made the same point about there being no way to tell how many records an artist sold, and that the sales listed are guesses. The only person who accused the page of inflating MJ's sales in their nomination was blocked for vandalism just shortly afterward, and the consensus was speedy keep. The nomination in 2012 was regarding a page fork for sales between 50-66 million, created by a random editor. So no, there hasn't been repetitive times when the page was nominated for deletion based on discontentment. The last time the page was nominated, the person again noted that they believed it was impossible to track sales and argued for other artists to be included based on their highest claimed sales, which can't be implemented based on the current definitions listed on the page. Also, GWR is not the arbiter of record sales, since they simply take claims from record companies or artists themselves and publish them, they don't track sales themselves. I'm still curious on what specific websites are complaining about MJ's sales being inflated in particular, and why no other artist is accused of this besides him… LaughinElf (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, my friend you do not think that 5 times is sufficient? and I would have to verify the reasons why. Not that I don't believe you. Yet the article is still very unstable and controversial. And moreover, the complaints are still extremely prevalent. Not just on this discussion forum but on opposite discussion forums where the subject at hand is constantly disputed, such as "Reddit" or "Quorum" to name just a few where the discontent when discussing the subject matter is widespread and frequent. And more and into the point, if you check the talking points of this forum, then you will realize that it goes beyond the scope of neutrality and decency. This article has been accused of being "problematic to its core" by more than one contributor. A good article does not have this type of negative feedback. There has been more than just one-person accusing the page of inflating Jackson's sales. Check the talking points in the discussion pages if they haven't been deleted. Furthermore, as I stated repeatedly the Guinness Book of World Records is a book of facts. Of course it is not an arbiter of record sales. It is to reiterate a book of facts. They get their information from reliable sources such as the RIAA when it comes to their point of references. It has The Beatles as the best-selling band with over a billion records sold and it has Elvis as the best-selling solo act with also a billion records sold. How can anyone dispute this? And why does it seem that this is the only article or best-selling listing directory that states for the record that Presley's sales are inflated. Even though he has 299 RIAA award certificates, more than any other recording act in this country alone. Let alone the RIAA auditors who went on record in 1992, establishing the fact he (Presley) had indeed surpass the billion-mark echelon in unit sales. Is it your opinion that the RIAA auditors are also erroneous in their auditing? This best-selling listing directory on the other hand, gets its sales figures from newspaper periodicals and other media outlets which are mostly outdated lacking veracity and factuality. Regardless I respect your zeal. You seem to be a vociferous defender of this article. I have no problem with that. Needless to state I did vote to keep this article. I believe that we can make it more credible and factual. However, as previously stated, this article needs some serious adjustments and modifications in order to establish itself in the domain of truthfulness, honesty and objectivity. In closing, once again, thank you for your response and feedback. Victor0327 (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

There's never going to be a consensus on whether any artist has inflated sales or not, since there's no way to track every single record sold from the beginning of the music industry. It's just strange to accuse one artist of being inflated while batting for other artists to have their highest claimed sales. Several people also complain about other artists having inflated sales throughout the last decade, which is prevalent in the talk pages for Elvis, Bing Crosby, MJ, and The Beatles. The claim for Elvis' "299 million award certificates" is misleading since the figure is the total amount of awards that he received, not the total amount of records he sold, which is evident when 171 of the awards are gold records that each equate to sales of 500,000. The GWR site states that his awards equate to 146.5 million in albums and 50.5 million in singles, with the total being 196.5 million in unit sales. His current listed unit sales on the page from the US equate to 199.650 million. https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/70109-most-riaa-certificates-ever. Again, the only way to establish the most credible and factual list possible is through omitting claimed sales and going based on total certifications allocated to specific artists, since those sales are all tracked and audited by the industry. If you want the highest claimed sales to be added to the page, you can go through an RFC process on the subject, until then they will never be added to the page based on the current definitions. LaughinElf (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. And let me also add that a consensus on any point whether its certified sales versus claimed sales, it's a schism that grows further and further apart to the point that no agreement can ever be reached. Believe me I have tried to appease both sides of the aisle. Moreover, omitting claimed sales is the equivalent of stating that acts like Bing Crosby, Mario Lanza, Glenn Miller and Tino Rossi never recorded a single track. This can be incredulous!! However, this is the reason that this best-selling listing directory will forever be problematic in establishing credibility. The reasoning for this? Music did not commence with the advent of Rihanna, Drake or even Michael Jackson. No, the first phonograph recording commenced with a song from one Enrique Caruso, way back in 1923. Has anybody heard of him? My point being that no independent audited figures were ever established for any of those entertainers, for there was no global certification industry tracking any sales way back then. So, in summary I agree with you. In closing, I would like to commend you for taking the time to respond to my briefs and feedback. You are a very knowledgeable and well verse contributor on this subject and it was a delight exchanging points of view with you. Again, thank you for your time and courtesy. Victor0327 (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Is Imposible get a consens , since the troubles from this page so big , It list has to be delete. Michael Jackson never sold more records that The Beatles , Elvis Presley, Bing Crosby or Frank Sinatra, even he don't sold more discs than ABBA or Julio Iglesias as a user said before .

Nana Mouskouri claims the 6 place . 157.100.143.94 (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Bing Crosby sold 1 billion records worldwide, at 1977 he sold over 500 millons ,currently Bing Crosby sold over 1 billion records worldwide.Elvis Presley and The Beatles sold over 1.500 records worldwide .Frank Sinatra sold over 600 millons records worldwide ( Cannes,1998), Julio Iglesias sold 300 millons records worldwide at 1983 (Guinness,1983) currently 500 millons worldwide , ABBA sold 210 millons at 1979 ( Guinness, 1979) curently over 500 or even 600 millons worldwide.

Al Jolson sold 10 millons worldwide at 00's that's amazing. currently ? I dont know.

Where is Perry Como , Dean Martín , Patti Page , Cliff Richard they were worldwide famous too.

This list is a Joke !!! 157.100.143.88 (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Jean-Michel Jarre

I went through the archive in this talk page, and the last time he was brought up seems to be 2011. Since then, many sources have mentioned an estimated 85 million sales to his name.

https://variety.com/2022/music/news/jean-michel-jarre-publishing-bmg-1235321616/

https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/jean-michel-jarre-sells-music-publishing-catalogue-bmg-2022-07-21/

https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-music-france-paris-b62940e2cb33790d9adb316953ef1868

https://www.euronews.com/culture/2022/10/27/jean-michel-jarre-releases-his-22nd-album-oxymore

https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/jean-michel-jarre-legion-president-emmanuel-macron-9591678/ Cahlin29 (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Page Deletion

This page has too many flaws, I also agree with its removal, there are requests for its preservation but it is not possible if the page continues with these inconveniences, the only solution here is to respect the declared sales of each artist independently, RIAA is not a reference to consider an objective classification, it is even erroneous since RIIA has been accused of overcertifying the sales of some artists. The considerations of Guinness Records, Billboard, Hit Parade and many contemporary entities must be respected. I invite everyone to check Quora, a debate site in these terms, this list is very biased towards Michael Jackson (His fans have exaggerated his figure when he was never considered as such). Now you can't exclude so many legendary music figures like Enrico Carruso, Al Jolson, Carlos Gardel massive characters in their respective, it's as if they didn't exist and that's already a mistake. This list has to be classified based on the 20th century artists with declared sales and the current ones with certified sales (Because the time is different and the interest in these topics is also more striking in the time of Al Jolson or Enrico Carruso sales did not have greater significance. You should also add many artists from different regions (Latin America, Europe, Asia or Africa) because otherwise this list would focus exclusively on the United States. That said, the 2 best-selling soloists are Elvis Presley and Bing Crosby both exceeded one billion records sold worldwide (In reality it is unknown which of the two has sold more, probably Elvis leads the way today or the last 10 years The third best-selling soloist in history is Frank Sinatra with more than 600 million records sold, the fourth is Julio Iglesias (His sales exceed 500 million and even 600 million records today, in fact his global fame is massive, I would love for Quora to be reviewed urgently to reconsider this page, I think its removal is the best. It should also be specified that Al Jolson sold 10 million records in the 1910s, and that is a spectacular achievement due to the time, these guys should be included in the list and not fall into the absurd criterion of (. Inflated sales) because music and cinema at that time was massive and sales much more than now, people try to evaluate past events with a current perspective and it is impossible the determinants of each era are very different. Michael Jackson isnt best-selling artist, neither the most successful or the most popular there is a lot of previous history, this list is made by ignorant people.

The Beatles probably did not outsell Elvis Presley, history says otherwise, it is clear that The Beatles also surpassed the billion mark and perhaps have a slight advantage today in album sales. But in singles it is impossible for them to have sold more than Bing Crosby, Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra, in fact the albums in the 40s and 50s were single sets, and the sales of Bing Crosby and Frank Sinatra depend on how they are considered because they were albums and singles sold at the same time. Now independent of the standard music that Frank Sinatra, Elvis Presley and Bing Crosby performed have the Christmas season aspect and those sales are massive globally even today. Apart from their sales of standard music, sales of their Christmas albums must be considered, so the first four places go to Elvis Presley, The Beatles, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, Julio Iglesias and ABBA Hispanicomania (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree , this Page has to be delete since have many troubles. 157.100.143.94 (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Is Imposible get a consens , since the troubles from this page so big , It list has to be delete. Michael Jackson never sold more records that The Beatles , Elvis Presley, Bing Crosby or Frank Sinatra, even he don't sold more discs than ABBA or Julio Iglesias as a user said before .

Nana Mouskouri claims the 6th place . 157.100.143.94 (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

A lot Wikipedia's members want a smart change . 157.100.143.94 (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, before 2009, Jackson sold less than Mouskouri and thus he was in 7th place. But after 2009, his sales began to rise. Now, he is in top 3, probably behind Elvis.213.230.87.84 (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 September 2024

As of December 2023, Nicki Minaj’s sales according to the RIAA are following:

Certifications + Eligibles of Nicki Minaj in US: 235.680 M

Songs: 224.680 M Albums: 11 M

So far she only has 143.560 M certified in the USA.

Worldwide statistics would be from Chart Masters ORG, which would still prove Minaj has over 100 Million WorldWide sales thus far. 31.223.151.148 (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bunnypranav (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Christina Aguilera

Her certification stats still need an update in some countries. I can't edit the page, can someone update it? Thank you.

Each link redirects to its certification.

Brazil certifications

Albums: Christina Aguilera: Gold, 100,000 Stripped: Gold, 100,000 Lotus: Gold, 20,000 Bionic: Gold, 20,000 Liberation: Gold, 20,000 Singles: "Moves Like Jagger": 5x Diamond, 1,250,000 "Lady Marmalade": Gold, 30,000 Total: 1,540,000 Each source from Pro-Música Brasil (PMB).

United Kingdom certifications

Albums: Keeps Gettin' Better: A Decade of Hits: Platinum, 300,000 Bionic: Silver, 60,000 Christina Aguilera, Platinum, 300,000 Stripped: 6x Platinum, 1,800,000 Back to Basics: Platinum, 300,000 Burlesque OST: Gold, 100,000 Singles: "Show Me How You Burlesque": Silver, 200,000 "Car Wash": Silver, 200,000 "Hurt": Gold, 400,000 "Moves Like Jagger": 4x Platinum, 2,400,000 "Feel This Moment": Platinum, 600,000 "Lady Marmalade": 2x Platinum, 1,200,000 "Genie in a Bottle": 2x Platinum, 1,200,000 "Come On Over (All I Want Is You): Silver, 200,000 "Ain't No Other Man": Gold, 400,000 "Fighter": Platinum, 600,000 "Nobody Wants to Be Lonely": Silver, 200,000 "Say Something": 2x Platinum, 1,200,000 "Can't Hold Us Down": Silver, 200,000 "Beautiful": Platinum, 600,000 "Candyman": Platinum, 600,000 "Dirrty": Platinum, 600,000 "Tell Me": Silver, 200,000 "What a Girl Wants": Silver, 200,000 Video Albums: Stripped Live in the U.K.: Platinum, 50,000 Total: 14,110,000 Each source from British Phonographic Industry (BPI).

Canada certifications

Albums: Christina Aguilera: 6x Platinum, 600,000 Back to Basics: 3x Platinum, 300,000 Stripped: 4x Platinum, 400,000 Lotus: Gold, 40,000 Singles: "Fighter": Platinum, 80,000 "Dirrty": 2x Platinum, 160,000 "Beautiful": 2x Platinum, 160,000 "Genie in a Bottle": Platinum, 80,000 "Moves Like Jagger": Diamond, 800,000 Digital Download: "Ain't No Other Man": Platinum, 20,000 "Hurt": Gold, 20,000 "Candyman": Gold, 20,000 "Say Something": 6x Platinum, 480,000 "Feel This Moment": 4x Platinum, 320,000 Ringtones: "Ain't No Other Man": Gold, 20,000 Total: 3,500,000 Each source from Music Canada (MC).

Australia certifications

Albums: Christina Aguilera: Platinum, 70,000 Stripped: 4x Platinum, 280,000 Back to Basics: 2x Platinum, 140,000 Keeps Gettin' Better: A Decade of Hits: Platinum, 70,000 Bionic: Gold, 35,000 Burlesque OST: Platinum, 70,000 Singles: "Genie in a Bottle": Platinum, 70,000 "What a Girl Wants": Gold, 35,000 "Come On Over (All I Want Is You)": Platinum, 70,000 "Nobody Wants to Be Lonely": Gold, 35,000 "Lady Marmalade": 2x Platinum, 140,000 "Dirrty": Platinum, 70,000 "Beautiful": Platinum, 70,000 "Fighter: Gold, 35,000 "Can't Hold Us Down": Gold, 35,000 "Car Wash": Gold, 35,000 "Tilt Ya Head Back": Platinum, 70,000 "Ain't No Other Man": Gold, 35,000 "Hurt": Gold, 35,000 "Candyman": Platinum, 70,000 "Not Myself Tonight": Gold, 35,000 "Moves Like Jagger": 17x Platinum, 1,190,000 "Feel This Moment": 3x Platinum, 210,000 "Say Something": 4x Platinum, 280,000 Video Albums: My Reflection: Platinum, 15,000 Stripped Live in the U.K.: 3x Platinum, 45,000 Back to Basics: Live and Down Under: 2x Platinum, 30,000 Total: 3,275,000 Each source from Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA).

Denmark certifications

Albums: Stripped: Platinum, 50,000 Back to Basics: Gold, 30,000 Singles: "Beautiful": Gold, 45,000 "Genie in a Bottle": Gold, 45,000 "This Christmas": Gold, 45,000 "Lady Marmalade": Gold, 45,000 "Dirrty": Gold, 4,000 "Ain't No Other Man": Gold, 4,000 "Hurt": Gold, 4,000 "Nobody Wants to Be Lonely": Gold, 4,000 "Moves Like Jagger": 3x Platinum, 270,000 "Feel This Moment": Gold, 15,000 "Say Something": 2x Platinum, 180,000 Total: 768,000 And streaming certifications... but I don't know how it is converted in sales: "Your Body": Gold, 900,000 "Moves Like Jagger": 2x Platinum, 200,000 "Feel This Moment": Platinum, 1,800,000 "Say Something": Platinum, 2,600,000 Each source from Hitlisten and IFPI Danmark.

Mexico certifications

Albums: Christina Aguilera: Platinum, 150,000 Mi Reflejo: Platinum, 150,000 Stripped: Gold, 75,000 Back to Basics: Gold, 50,000 Singles: "Feel This Moment": 2x Platinum + Gold: 150,000 "Hoy Tengo Ganas de Ti": Diamond, 300,000 "Say Something": Gold, 30,000 Total: 905,000 Source: AMPROFON

Germany certifications

Albums: Back to Basics: 3x Gold, 300,000 Stripped: 2x Platinum, 600,000 Singles: "Say Something": Platinum, 300,000 "Hurt": Gold, 150,000 "Genie in a Bottle": Platinum, 500,000 "Dirrty": Gold, 250,000 "Lady Marmalade": Platinum, 500,000 "Moves Like Jagger": 5x Gold, 750,000 "Feel This Moment": Platinum, 300,000 Video Albums: Stripped Live in the U.K.: Gold, 25,000 Total: 3,675,000 Source: BVMI

Furthermore, Aguilera's certified sales surpass 87 million with the above updates, I believe that qualifies her for the 100 million records sold group. This can be supported by sources from Nine.com.au and Newsweek as can be seen here and here. Melketon (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree! In Brazil Stripped was certified gold for 50k shipped not 100k. You can include in the article those informations. Why don't you do it? Markus WikiEditor (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)