Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Instagram accounts (3rd 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 keep. (non-admin closure) — MarkH21talk 03:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

List of most-followed Instagram accounts
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

I've carefully read the article and its previous 2 x deletion requests and conclude that this fully violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE, on the grounds that "wikipedia is not xcessive listings of unexplained statistics". Aside from the fact that the list is always out of date, wikipedia should not rely on primary sources like social media. The existence of articles/sources that talk about most followed celebrities that exist from reliable sources is neither here nor there as it provides no context as to why its important. In that sense, its border promotion - in the same way that links to retailers are discouraged so as to not provide free promotion.

Although links to personal or organisational websites are allowed when they're in an article about a specific subject, this article is a list. There is also lots of coverage that many instagram accounts are fake and/or bots. As many as 90 million accounts. Additionally, this page is fairly orphaned apart from the celebrity/company in question linking it it. The top text should be merged to the page Instagram - that is arguable encyclopaedic, but the running tally of who has how many follows isn't. Per WP:10YEARTEST, I don't know if anyone will care in 10 years time. I'd say be bold, delete the stats and instead merge the paragraph to instagram and paste the Find top Instagram Users link in the external links section at Instagram. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 17:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{  Talk  }- 17:45, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, there is WP:SIGCOV of the most followed instagram accounts and significant precedent for maintaining these kinds of lists. See List of most-followed Twitter accounts, List of most-subscribed YouTube channels, List of most-followed Twitch channels, and List of most-followed TikTok accounts. SailingInABathTub (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "strong precedent" based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? I would think we could come up with a better argument than that. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 21:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, like the others (and their many deletion nominations), it passes WP:NLIST due to significant coverage of this grouping. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Disagree massively with the sentiment that WP:SIGCOV means something is notable when it is clearly a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Additionally, as I've said above, there is ample evidence that many accounts on instagram are bots/fake and therefore the reliability of the information is flawed, even if covered by reliable sources. This further hampers the notion that it is encyclopaedic content. Additionally coverage talks the profiles that have the most followers by lack additional context required to pass GNG. WP:GNG goes beyond simply mentioning the topic. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 21:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep They get ample coverage for being so popular on Instagram. Someone famous moves to a top spot, the media covers it. Ample coverage easy to find if anyone doubts that.    D r e a m Focus  00:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep reasonable list, has gotten some coverage before, needing improvement is not a reason for deletion. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also keep in mind that every entry here is independently notable. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: It has received coverage. Similar to the lists mentioned by SailingInABathTub, there's really nothing WP:INDISCRIMINATE there. That said, the article easily passes WP:NLIST. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: As others mentioned, becoming a top-followed celebrity does bring a lot of coverage. Also you seem not to have fully read WP:INDISCRIMINATE which states: "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article." I would argue that this article IS the "split" into a second article, as this is not the main Wikipedia page about Instagram. Make sure to fully understand what Wikipedia policies you have invoked before incorrectly invoking them. There is a reason the previous deletion requests did not get accepted. I recommend a speedy keep on this. HungryHighway (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very obviously not a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE's section on unexplained statistics. The follower count criteria is clearly given in the lede. The follower stats are neatly organized in a table. The article is a valid split from the main Instagram page. If this was its own article divorced of all context, it would technically not be given the proper context, but since it's split from the main Instagram article, that's not an issue here. People either know what Instagram is or can click the link. Debating whether to give a short summary of Instagram in the articles does not require an AFD. The stuff about bots isn't really relevant, 90 million sounds like a lot but it's 10% of the userbase and apparently concentrated in lower-tier influencers. Also, this has already passed the 10-year test — Instagram was founded in 2010.  Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:28, 14 March 2021 (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.