Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-liked Instagram posts


 * 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. After extended time for discussion, consensus is overwhelmingly clear. bd2412 T 02:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

List of most-liked Instagram posts

 * – ( 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)  15:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  16:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  16:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article meets WP:LISTN. Wile most of the coverage focuses on the recent success of the egg picture, there are several sources predating the egg picture by several years. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is mostly original research and a list of links. Note how the same list entry appears twice. Unreliable sourcing and WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Spirit of Eagle that the article complies with WP:LISTN; the topic of the article has received lots of media attention lately. There also seems to be enough people following and updating the page that I'm not concerned with it becoming out-of-date. Finally, although admittedly this isn't very impartial, I'm glad the article exists because I can't find any other credible site hosting a comparable list anywhere else. – Monkeyfume (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If there aren't any such lists elsewhere then this must be WP:OR.--Pontificalibus 09:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Passes WP:LISTN and has lots of RSs. —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 23:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is WP:OR. There are no sources to support the list order, for example where is the source claiming that "Cristiano Ronaldo/ Photo with girlfriend" is the 13th most-liked post?--Pontificalibus 09:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - This subject passes WP:LISTN. Skirts89 15:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. I swear every time I look at one of these kinds of pages there's an AfD banner at the top. SemiHypercube 00:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The question of whether this is WP:OR is an interesting one - I'm inclined to say it's not. Looking at articles in Category:Lists_of_superlatives, they usually seem to follow the same pattern as this one, where the value attributed to each item in the list is sourced, but there's no source for the list/ranking as a whole. e.g. in List of oldest cats, we have a citation saying that Nutmeg lived to be 32 years old, but we don't source the claim that this makes her the 8th oldest cat. Perhaps the reason this pattern has been allowed to stand in so many articles is that identifying and sorting the largest values (of cat ages, Instagram likes, exoplanet sizes, etc.) can be considered a form of routine calculation? Given the popularity of superlative lists, I do wish the topic were treated WP:STANDALONE. Colin M (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Colin M. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  04:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My opinion hasn't changed from earlier: Keep. – Monkeyfume (talk) 22:43, 22 February 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.