Deletion of List of most-liked Instagram posts

Comment: Passes  and has lots of RSs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: The question of whether this is  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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:CALC||WP:STANDALONE)

Comment: This is mostly original research and a list of links. Note how the same list entry appears twice. Unreliable sourcing and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTATS)

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

Comment: The article meets . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)