Deletion of List of most-followed Instagram accounts (2nd nomination)

Comment: regrettably per . The media like such trivia, and such lists are commonly reported, as given above by others and also in search (e.g. https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a23863/most-followed-celebrities-on-instagram-in-2016/https://www.forbes.com/sites/bishopjordan/2016/12/04/most-followed-instagram/https://www.seventeen.com/celebrity/g22852822/most-followers-on-instagram/).  do say what list might be acceptable, and linked to  - since it qualifies under LISTN, NOTSTATS no longer applies and is therefore not a relevant issue here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:NOTSTATS||WP:LISTN)

Comment: The suggestions to Keep the list are ''still'' being justified on variants of , i.e. that {{tq|other such stuff exists in Wikipedia}}. And now the latest Keep suggestion uses those other ones as justification! Cool_Hand_Luke#"Failure_to_communicate"|What we've got here is failure in circular reasoning|reasoning
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHER)

Comment: Passes . https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/selena-gomez-instagram-cristiano-ronaldo-social-media-followers-a8608626.htmlhttps://techcrunch.com/gallery/what-the-25-most-followed-instagram-accounts-can-tell-us-about-using-social-media/ "It gets vandalized" is not a valid reason to delete a page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: passes . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: Single source and looks like a fansite. Fails  as well as 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:NOTSTATS)

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 {{tq|encyclopedic and topical relevance
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:JUSTAVOTE||WP:ITSNOTABLE||WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:CSC||WP:POLICIES)