Deletion of List of most-followed Instagram accounts

Comment: per nomination and  violation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: This article is a  related article (look at all the names of living people) and I placed a BLP template on the talk page. I really should not have to go any farther -- but -- Please read from the policy page: '''"This page in a nutshell''': Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research.", and from the lead: ''"This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."''. There is then the question of . The article is well referenced, having 58 of them, but they are all from "Instagram" which are |primary (a subsection of Wikipedia:No original research) which states: '''"Do not''' ''base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."''. This leads us back to PRIMARY that states: ''"Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."''. Considering all this there is evidence the article should have been blanked because of BLP violations. The statement, that I have seen variants used several times, "...and the list is a summary of the information in the other articles"., does not give an exception to , and introduces concerns of |original research and certainly |synthesis. Maybe we should re-visit List of most-followed Twitter accounts (52 references with 99.98% primary), and other "List of most..." articles, with some of this in mind since BLP issues have apparently been overlooked Wikipedia-wide
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:PRIMARY||WP:BLPPRIMARY||WP:OR||WP:notability||WP:policies and guidelines||WP:synthesis)

Comment: not an encyclopedic topic, a bunch of  that is primary-sourced
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:RAWDATA)

Comment: as the topic of most-followed Instagram accounts falls short of . I also don't think viewer interest is or ought to be a factor here. |Notability is about the ''potential'' to write an article about a given topic that complies with RS, OR, NPOV, and contains more than a few sentences; and the NOT requirements are about advancing Wikipedia's broader purpose. Also: 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (:WP:LISTN||:WP:WHYN||:WP:POPULARPAGE)

Comment: For starters, the number of people who follow any given Instagram account changes daily for any number of reasons: new followers adding it, old followers removing it, and on and so forth — so it's a characteristic that's in a state of constant flux and renders a list dynamically unmaintanable. Secondly, the references aren't |reliable sources at all — with just one exception they're merely the |primary source Instagram feeds themselves, and the exception is just a raw ranking aggregator and doesn't contain any ''content'' to analyze or explain why the rankings would ''matter''. Which means that ''ranking'' people by the size of their social media following isn't a thing that ''reliable'' sources ''do'' — it amounts to |original research that we're doing ''ourselves''. Having more Instagram followers than somebody else does is not a comment on their relative worth or talent — Selena Gomez doesn't have more Instagram followers than Adele because she's a better singer or makes better music, she's just a bigger gossip magnet who plays the celebrity game more actively (basically, people are just hoping she'll post revenge porn of her ex-boyfriends' peckers.) And it doesn't even mean Selena has a bigger ''fan base'' than Adele does; Adele's sold more than 14 times as many records as Selena has, and the only difference is that more of Adele's fans are adults who have more important things to do with their time (like being the parents of Selena Gomez fans) than clcking the little hearts on Instagram posts all day. And when the single most widely followed account (with almost twice as many followers as the runner-up) on Instagram is, well, Instagram itself, that's not really telling you very much at all — people follow the host account because they want to keep up with the platform's news releases. Big fat hairy "Tom on Myspace" deal. Who over the age of 12 ''really'' gives two hoots about ''ranking'' people by the size of their social media followings
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:OR)

Comment: https://www.businessinsider.in/Here-are-the-10-most-followed-Instagram-accounts-in-2017/1-Selena-Gomez/slideshow/61855181.cmshttps://techcrunch.com/gallery/what-the-25-most-followed-instagram-accounts-can-tell-us-about-using-social-media/slide/1/https://reuters.com/article/us-people-instagram/cristiano-ronaldo-climbs-instagram-ranks-selena-gomez-most-followed-idINKBN1DT1S9https://www.teenvogue.com/story/instagram-year-in-review-2017-the-10-most-followed-celebritieshttps://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/7256351/selena-gomez-most-followed-instagramhttp://people.com/social-media-stars/instagram-2016-selena-gomez-is-most-followed-plus-the-most-popular-posts-and-hashtags/ documents the set in clearly reliable sources (reuters, people magazine, businessinsider) - from  {{tq|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}} and {{tq|The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.}}. Not sure whether the number listed should be trimmed to be easier to maintain (top 25?), but a list of at least the top 10 is clear from RS
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)