Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Avril Lavigne Bandaids and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the .
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Paladium, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Avril Lavigne Bandaids, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paladium. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Avril Lavigne Bandaids".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 14:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Paladium. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Avril Lavigne Bandaids".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of the page, here's what i found out. Based on the certified sales in 2009 (15 years ago) and comparing them to today. Since all three acts are behind on Digital singles, this is mostly pure sales

The Beatles had certified sales of 190 million in the United States at the time, they've now sold 27,000,000 units since then in the US and gained 71,000,000 units worldwide, putting their certified sales at 294 million.

Elvis Presley was certified for sales of 188 Million worldwide (176 Million in the US) in 2009, today he stands at 234 million certified units meaning he either sold 40 million since then or they retroactively certified outdated units

Elvis in 1971 was claimed to have sold 160 million records, with The Guardian reporting that he had 260 million when he died. The Beatles were claimed to have sold 200 million when Elvis Presley died.

Based on this we can estimate that their certified sales would be behind 200 million of their actual sales, so Elvis Presley's certified sales of 234 million would be equal to 434,000,000 records

For The Beatles, their certified sales of 294 million are equal to 494,000,000 records. With how high the Beatles streams are, it's certain that they will gain another 20-30 million digital singles with a certification. Whereas with Presley his streaming numbers are low, so it's unlikely he'll gain anymore

In Short, for the certified sales of Elvis and the Beatles add 200 million to get real sales figures.

No discussion needs to be made on Jackson as a consensus was already made to put him at 500 million, however we have more recent sources stating he's sold 500 million that could be added to his page. The claims of him selling 750 million units was never disputed, only if it meant albums. What those claims actually meant was Combining Michael's individual sales with the Jacksons / Jackson 5 sales, The Beatles claims of 600 million plus also makes sense when viewing it as a combination of Every Beatles member plus the Group Never17 (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the research. I think the album sales of different music acts should be kept separated under each name. Paladium (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, i was just clarifying what those claims were referring too. Never17 (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]