Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram accounts (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  20:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

List of most-followed Instagram accounts
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

List is not encyclopedic content and we are not the Hot 100. Looks like listcruft and WP:NOTSTATS. List is nothing more than poll/popularity data that is subject to rapid changes and maintaining these lists is not what Wikipedia is about. These lists are magnets for UPE/COI promotional editors. See also Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram Business accounts. — Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  16:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  16:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Single source and looks like a fansite. Fails WP:NOR as well as WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:LISTN. "It gets vandalized" is not a valid reason to delete a page. —   python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 23:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep.-- · Bradford   &#9993;  20:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  M h hossein   talk 11:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. --BlueFire10 Let's talkabout my edits? 14:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete given tbe fact that the sourcing is absolutely terrible, the numbers change daily, and the information itself is simply unecyclopedic. It’s trivia! And for God’s sake whose idea was it to put these unprofessional, childish pink and blue gender markings there. Trillfendi (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there is List of most-subscribed YouTube channels. I really don't like this article missing WP:GNL. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 18:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Anybody with two brain cells would know Cristiano Ronaldo is a man and Kylie Jenner is a woman. Putting gender markings next to their names is stupid and inconsistent given that in the Countries section it implies that those countries have a gender.... Trillfendi (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I've removed them entirely and replaced it with a check mark indicating that it's a corporate or government account BOLDly. It's pretty clear who the account belongs to and how they identify, so it's overdata for the sake of overdata.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - passes WP:LIST. Skirts89 19:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (I think you mean WP:LISTN) Colin M (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep (I agree with the "gender markings next to their names is stupid" point though). Tony85poon (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hi - just thought I'd drop you a reminder that your keep votes won't be "!votes" (not-votes/justified statements) if you don't provide a degree of reasoning with your Keep/Delete/Merge etc, so any closer will discount them. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are hardly any mention in these celebrities' pages about their insta accounts. Fails context. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 20:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that holds up as an argument to delete - logically it should be mentioned in their pages, but the fact that it isn't, yet, doesn't warrant the information's deletion elsewhere. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: We have lists like this for YouTube as well. It's interesting and relevant. If we delete it here, then there won't really be a better place for people to get a list like this. Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: So far, most Keep suggestions are offered without justification, or are based on a simple notability assertion, or assure us that policy is met. But, as the relevant guideline advises, we should really be focusing on whether the list is of encyclopedic and topical relevance. -The Gnome (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  07:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment participants in this discussion may be interested in reading this AfD for a similar article: Articles for deletion/List of most-liked Instagram posts. The main difference I see is that that article currently has much better sourcing. I'm having a hard time finding quality sources reporting on follower counts for any individual account, or about the overall ranking of accounts by followers. Colin M (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nominator should have considered MULTIAFD. THE NEW  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 00:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * He did but then made the better decision not to and let each one stand on its own merits. Several have been deleted and several remain so, no, multi-AFD would not have been the correct decision.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Last time
 * Keep - passes WP:LISTN. There are many more articles of its kind, such as List of most-liked Facebook pages, List of most-followed Twitter accounts, List of most-subscribed YouTube channels, List of most streamed artists on Spotify etc. And i think the visitors like to have a statistics of the social media. Legion X (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not useful for encyclopedia WP:Nostat - MA Javadi (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - not necessarily less notable than the similar lists for FaceBook, Twitter and YouTube. Unoc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. Dawid2009 (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment : The suggestions to Keep the list are still being justified on variants of WP:OTHER, i.e. that other such stuff exists in Wikipedia. And now the latest Keep suggestion uses those other ones as justification! What we've got here is failure in reasoning. -The Gnome (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: WP:LISTN states that "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". A search for "most followed instagram accounts" reveals such discussion from Business Insider, TechCrunch and The Independent. The article may have problems, but it does seem notable. Gaelan 💬✏️ 06:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep regrettably per WP:LISTN. The media like such trivia, and such lists are commonly reported, as given above by others and also in search (e.g. ). WP:NOTSTATS do say what list might be acceptable, and linked to WP:LISTN - since it qualifies under LISTN, NOTSTATS no longer applies and is therefore not a relevant issue here. Hzh (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.