Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of best-selling albums worldwide


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Spartaz Humbug! 07:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

List of best-selling albums worldwide

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per WP:N, the article is a “list topic” apparently without “discussion as a group or set by independent reliable sources”. Wrapped in Grey (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment: “List of best-selling albums worldwide” is not encyclopedic since it is not well-defined (for example, “The World’s 20 best-selling albums as of January 2009” would be better defined). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination updated in light of discussion; see Summing up below. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Perhaps in need of cleanup, but still a useful and important list. SNaismith (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * However, “useful and important” do not constitute WP’s notability criteria. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, contrary to what the nominator says, the topic is often discussed in reliable sources, either on individual records (X is one of the bestselling records worldwide), or as a list (e.g. the "Billboard Magazine: 300 Best Selling Albums (Worldwide)", or articles like this one from Associated Content. This book has a list of Best-Selling Albums of All Time. Less relevant perhaps, but also of possible interest, is that this list (and similar ones like the one for books) are very popular, with this list getting some 150,000 page views per month, which is massive. Fram (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The topic of the article is a single piece of information, i.e. a list. Discussion of an individual item (supposedly) on the list does not constitute discussion of the article subject i.e. the list.
 * A list published in a magazine such as Billboard would be likely unusable as a WP article for copyright reasons.
 * The Associated Content “article” you mention is in fact part of an advertisement for a musical; it does not purport to be a source of such a list.
 * “Massive” popularity of a WP page does not constitute notability per WP:N.
 * Futhermore, see additional comment added at the top. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Perfectly encyclopedic list. --Michig (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would care to comment on the reason given for the proposal i.e. lack of “discussion as a group or set by independent reliable sources” and the additional comment at the top re being encyclopedic. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could leave quotes from WP:N aside for a moment and think about how deleting this list would improve the encyclopedia. It wouldn't. Worldwide best-selling albums are often the subject of coverage by reliable sources. If you look on Amazon for instance you'll find plenty of sources there that cover this area, e.g. MTV Pop and Rock World Records 2011, Guinness Book of World Records, and similarly a Google News search should show you that this is often the subject of newspaper and magazine articles. To be honest, it's a pretty obviously worthwhile list to have in an encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just saying that sources exist does not constitute a convincing argument. Guinness does not publish the list (AFAIK, it covers only the top 2); being of a similar subject, I expect the MTV book is the same. If suitable sources really existed, most likely, they would have been used by now (the page has been around for some time). As for thinking how deleting this list would improve the encyclopedia, I would hope that it would be obvious that time spent by editors on WP:OR in trying to compile the list themselves, as is done currently, is time wasted. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently that's only obvious to you. Given that we have a properly-sourced list that others feel has encyclopedic value, it certainly is not WP:OR and it isn't time wasted...speaking of which, your position is clear, my mind is made up, so there's no reason to spend any more time on this discussion. --Michig (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Summarising so that the quality of this editor's argument can be judged at the end of the discussion:
 * The editor suggested some potential sources for the article.
 * It was explained that they did not cover the subject (as required by WP:N for a list topic).
 * The editor then claimed that the article is properly sourced anyway (without citing or commenting on any of the sources used).
 * Despite prompting, at no point did the editor attempt to discuss the specific points raised in the nomination (in particular, on how the given clause in WP:N impacts this article).
 * Wrapped in Grey (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is one of the most important music list on Wikipedia. With 62 reliable sources to support its notability, there's no reason to delete this page. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Being “most important” does not constitute WP’s notability criteria (see WP:N).
 * Neither, for a list topic, does having ‘vanilla’ RSs; the bar is set higher for such topics, see the first sentence on this page.

Here are two more indications of the non-encyclopedic nature of this article: Wrapped in Grey (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC) While there are a number of possibilities for how this type of information could be handled in a more encyclopedic way within Wikipedia, the most encyclopedic option available in this case would seem to be to treat the list as a category. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Non-encyclopedic
 * It demonstrates its failure to be encyclopedic in its first five words; from WP:MOSBEGIN: “If the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X"”.
 * A reader of the article might well ask the following questions: “Who publishes the list?”, “Where is a reliable source that I can use to verify that an item on the list (as presented in the article) has not been omitted?”. He would, however, not find the answers in our article—why is that?
 * Suggestion
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Fram and Bluesatellite, who have rebutted the nom's claims. I don't remotely find the claim credible that best-selling albums as a topic has not been discussed by multiple reliable sources, and every entry in this list appears to be well sourced.  The fact that our list may combine entries from separate lists published by reliable sources is irrelevant, particularly given that we know how to count and so can decide without violating WP:OR whether to place an album that sold 49 million albums above one that sold 45 million.  And that seems to be the nom's main complaint: that this list is compiled from multiple sources rather than copied from a single preexisting list.  This is (to put it gently) not a view held by many here; I've only seen it advanced by a lone dissenter in a recent list-related RFC.  As for whether any albums have been omitted, add them if you can find a source that they qualify for the list.  The nom's WP:MOSBEGIN argument is simply without any merit as it applies to the issue of "encyclopedicness"; it's a style guideline, not an inclusion guideline, and in any event the precise language of the lede is arbitrary and can be rewritten if anyone else thinks it's a problem.  postdlf (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether an editor finds it credible that reliable sources do or don’t exist is irrelevant—reliable sources (per the criteria specific to list topics) have to be shown, in this discussion, to exist. Neither Fram nor Bluesatellite has proffered reliable sources; having Google hits does not prove or show reliability.  Take, for example, Fram’s “Billboard Magazine: 300 Best Selling Albums (Worldwide)”. This is in fact a fake list that floats around on forums; Billboard never published it—it is not a reliable source.  That we know how to count qualifies us to subtract someone’s birth date from the current date and state their age; to compile an incomplete set of data, from 62 different sources, which use varying measurement methodology, have differing measurement uncertainty and temporal relationship, and to present a particular view of this data as a whole is statistical analysis, not a “routine calculation”.  These problems go away if the list is converted to a suitably-named category, “Albums having sold at least 20 million copies worldwide” or, more strictly, “Albums estimated to have sold at least 20 million copies worldwide”. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep  Th e S te ve   11:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CONSENSUS, your comment does not constitute a useful contribution to the discussion; if you do have a useful contribution to make, it would be very welcome. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:AfD, I have nothing further to add to the discussion, and this is merely support for all those other Keep opinions.   Th e S te ve   10:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would suggest that this discussion could probably be closed early per WP:SNOW.--Michig (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that you have so far failed to show any appreciation for, or willingness to discuss, the specifics of this particular discussion (i.e. list-specific notability requirements, the math related aspect of the presentation, or problems with the lead; all helpfully discussed by postdlf), I would respectfully suggest that you leave the discussion to those who have understood the issues raised. If OTOH you believe that you have understood the issues but believe that no discussion is needed because the perceived problems with the article can be attributed to a misinterpretation of policy, it would be helpful to state this and to clarify the intention of the policy in question. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The consequence of the approach taken by this article to handling this type of information is that it invites the reader to commit original syn. WP itself falls into the trap in this example: “16 of the 72 fiction authors with at least 100 million copies of their works in print did not write in English, and 16 of the 72 are women” (synthesized from a similar article and published on the main page). — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:ORIGINAL SYN
 * I fully appreciate and understand the notability requirements, the encyclopedic nature of this list and what original research is. You clearly have no understanding of any of these, and this should be clear to you from the fact that other contributors to this discussion with much more experience here than you are unanimously in favour of keeping this list. Your insistence in responding to every other post in this discussion with personal criticism and dismissal of other people's views is also very disruptive and unhelpful towards this discussion.--Michig (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To pick just one of the misrepresentations in the previous comment: “dismissal of other people's views”, or, in more-collegial terms, “presenting an alternative view-point” and “providing evidence to the contrary” is not being disruptive, quite the opposite; it is core to the development a structured argument. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - All entries are supported by reliable sources, I think many are inflated, but I'm not sure why this article is being targeted. Maybe List of best-selling music artists, List of best-selling singles worldwide and every other "list of" page should be deleted too???
 * Basically, each article should be considered on its own merits (see WP:WAX for more details). Sources that qualify an item to belong in a list do not establish notability of the list/set/group; a specific criterion exists for “list topics” in WP:N to this effect.  As such, there is little in this discussion that comes down to opinion—either the notability sources exist or they don't.  The article currently attempts to establish topic notability with the following text “This is a list of the world's best-selling albums” (before going on to define the list inclusion criteria); this is in direct conflict with the guidelines on what list article should look like.  A list article (like any other article) should have an engaging lead that establishes topic notability.  For example, “Group/set/list of best-selling albums worldwide is/was compiled/measured/something by A[1], and used/abused/something by B[2]” might be a template for a suitable lead sentence.  The article has been around for a long time, it should be a trivial job for one of its regular editors to concoct a suitably sourced lead; if so, job done, notability established, AFD closed. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No other participant in this AFD has agreed with you that notability has not been established. No admin is going to close an AFD as delete that is unanimously against the nom unless it was a clear BLP violation or copyvio, so it really doesn't matter how much you think your interpretation of these matters is correct if you haven't persuaded anyone else.  And one person responding to everyone who disagrees with him in an AFD does not further his argument, particularly if he's completely alone in his position; it just makes him seem tiresome to deal with, tends not to win anyone over, and does not change the outcome.  That one person further claiming that they are the only one in the discussion who is properly interpreting policies or guidelines just makes him seem tendentious, and also tends not to win anyone over.  This is obviously going to be closed as keep.  You should take it as an opportunity to reflect on why your views are out of step with everyone else's here, and think twice before posting another AFD that may also be unanimously against you.  Just some observations and constructive criticism based on many years of XFD participation.  postdlf (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As advised by WP:AFD, the debate is not a vote, it's er, a debate, during which arguments can be developed, views can be changed, on all sides. Indeed, things have moved on: Fram has found some very interesting sources and if you look below, you'll see that notability may well have been established.  This is great as it allows us to move to the next part of the discussion. Comments on the question below (11:51, 24 January 2011) would be very welcome. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrapped in Grey had some criticism of my earlier sources, perhaps valid, perhaps not. Anyway, this time I give you an article from The Times, including a list of the 20 bestselling albums of all time. While it doesn't include any numbers, it does indicate that this list actually is the topic of "discussion as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as requested at the top, in this case discussing the difference between the somewhat objective list of bestselling albums and the much more subjective list of most influential albums. The book "Rock & Roll Facts, Figures & Fun" by Mike Evans also has a list of best selling albums of all time worldwide (after the US and UK lists), discussing the dominance of rock in this list. Fram (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great work! So why does our article ignore these reliable sources (which not only discuss the list but also include the list) and compile its own list (perhaps a question for Bluesatellite as a regular at the article)? — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the good folks taking part in the discussion, we now have reliable sources on list topic “Best-selling albums worldwide”. Per WP:N, they discuss the topic “as a group or set”; they also cite the list contents. The current article however, does not use these sources; instead it compiles the list using a method of its own divising. To attempt to compile the list in competition with the reliable topic sources is clearly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It seems therefore, that there is scope for two articles as follows: As a category, List of albums having sold 20M+ copies worldwide would neither require topic sources nor could be considered a content fork. Whether or not this constitutes deleting or keeping the current article depends on ones point of view. However, nothing is lost: all the research that goes into the current page can continue, the information being stored in album articles linked from List of albums having sold 20M+ copies worldwide (in fact, this may well already happen). The conflict resolution mechanism performed in compiling the current article (which selects the highest number found for each album, apart from one specific album) would not be needed; conflicting figures can be stored in sourced prose in the album articles. Alternatively, the reader could view a reliably-sourced, complete, ordered and discussed list in the Best-selling albums worldwide article. — Wrapped in Grey (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keepas per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Summing up
 * A Best-selling albums worldwide article, sourced from the topic sources found in this discussion.
 * A List of albums having sold 20M+ copies worldwide article, created by renaming the current article (as this name reflects its sourcing and inclusion criteria) but presented as a navigational (as opposed to informational) list and sourced from a category that can be attached to appropriate album articles.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.