Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes


 * 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, with a distinct possibility of a merge. A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 14:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Gives undue weight to the Rotten Tomatoes rating. Fails WP:GNG also, all sources are primary or dont say much about the tomatometer. Beerest 2 talk 18:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Poor delete rationale. Rotten Tomatoes is clearly notable and all references are not from primary sources. Numerous movies sites (and Wikipedia articles) use Rotten Tomatoes ratings. -- Neil N   talk to me  20:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep How is it undue weight on Rotten Tomatoes? A film having a 100% rating aggregated from numerous professional reviews is very noteworthy in the film world and very rare. Previous problems with attempts to merge into main article and the length of the list means that this well-sourced list is appropriate. I would also encourage a List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes which is also noteworthy I think. Look about film articles on wikipedia, Rotten Tomatoes rating has become an integral part of film reviewing and as a cinema buff I think it's useful to have a list which are ranked the highest on the website which have universal positive reviews. Not to mention that it gets over 11,000 hits a month and is obviously something quite popular with people looking to find films.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Tomatoe/MC are better as an aggregate resource than any individual. It is just a list of existing articles, all of which are clearly notable.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  23:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep- Undue weight does not seem a good rationale in this case. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment It needs clearer criteria. A new, unfavorable review could be added at any time, knocking an article off the list. Hence there's no way of knowing that the list is accurate (i.e. that a film on the list actually has a 100% rating at present). Therefore, we should choose a particular date and call it something like "films with 100% as of January 1, 2014". --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be good, I'll add that, thanks. As you can see by the latest IP edits though the non 100% listings are typically quickly spotted. All of the ones recently removed were 100%, now 98% because of a negative review.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the above meant a negative added to RT. If a reviewer added a single negative review, even years or decades after release, it would change the 100% rating. It is a problem on RT's end though. What if someone came in now and dinged Birth or Casablanca, decades after the fact. Perhaps something along the lines of 100% after one year (if there was a way to determine time) as most modern movies would be reviewed in a timely fashion-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  14:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know what you mean. I'm not sure how you'd gauge it though. Mary Poppins for instance had a 100% listing for years. A 100% listing is still notable though.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep since such a list appears notable per WP:NOTESAL, seeing the inline citations used. However, I recommend rewording the lead section to explain that the Rotten Tomatoes staff assesses if a review is positive or negative (never mixed). Maybe also mention the kinds of reviews that Rotten Tomatoes aggregates since it includes periodicals and certain blogs. I also think that the list should be in table format so it can include the number of reviews for sorting. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The list also needs to be cleaned up. It looks like Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz do not belong here. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Those are perfect examples of the dings to 100%. The single Rotten reviewer of Oz is a "Top Critic" but only has 7 reviews. Of the 3 Wind Rottens, one of them has just a single review.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  14:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I'm no fan of the list, which is why I proposed the conditional language. The list as a topic seems to meet notability guidelines, however. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Rotten Tomatoes (my favorable vote) or Keep: The information should be here. I am not doubting that. It's just that all the sources are proving is that Rotten Tomatoes is notable IMO not particularly this topic. This list of the article and would seem better as a section to me on the RT page (which I recall it being once and looking fine to me). Of course (for once) I am in a minority. Jhenderson  7 7 7  15:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge The topic is just about notable since films that have scored 100% have been considered as a "set" by several—albeit low-rent—articles: . The list has just enough going for it to exist; however, I think the merge suggestion above is the better option. Betty Logan (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge - Worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia such as Wiki and is an invaluable reference tool. Keep or merge, but certainly not deletion. Manxwoman (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – This site gets over 11,000 hits a month. This list is helpful to those looking for a list of films which have the rare 100% rating.   Cassianto Talk   18:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, this list is copied from this primary source, so it isn't exactly hard to find.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 20:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Only partly, it contains others and will grow increasingly as people find them!♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I did initially add it to the main article but it was reverted, somebody claimed UNDUE or something. I'd rather merge it too and also create a 0% list. I agree that only films with over 20 reviews should be included and some with under may have crept in and should be removed. It is isn't the best list Erik but I and 11,000 others a month are obviously coming here looking for a comprehensive list.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's why I would like to make it clear in the introduction that the list does not include items like Gone with the Wind because of a single review out of a hundred or so preventing any such listing. Maybe we should link to List of films considered the best in a "See also" section. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that bugs me because some of the films really should have a 100% rating! Some of my favourite films (like Sunset Boulvard, Roman Holiday and 2001: A Space Odyssey etc) tend to have a 96-98% rating but there's always an idiot reviewer or two who have to ruin it!!♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep And I would also encourage the creation of List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes article, which has been mentioned above. I'm still not sure how this brings undue weight onto Rotten Tomatoes.  Actually if this was merged into Rotten Tomatoes (or List of films considered the best, which is a different topic altogether) it would overtake the article.  Best to leave as is.LM2000 (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This does not look like a overtaken article to me at all. Definitely when the Rotten Tomatoes article is already kind of small. Jhenderson  7 7 7  04:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, that doesn't look like I expected it too. Still a bit undue for my tastes though.LM2000 (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Reatlas has something to say about that.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC) 
 * Merge to the main Rotten Tomatoes article; while worth mentioning somewhere I think this list is a bit too much for a standalone article, especially since it's basically one primary source being regurgitated.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 20:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge. As has been mentioned, this list may change on the RT website over time and it's unlikely that it would be properly updated on Wikipedia as it changes. A subsection on the main RT article titled "Films with a 100% rating" could contain this article's lead and a link to the RT website's page with the 100% list. This way, the reader is given useful context and an explanation of the subject while we avoid having a list that would likely become bloated and/or outdated. I think it makes sense to simply provide a direct link to the list's source which serves as the sole reference to each entry anyway which would always be automatically updated. 24.55.216.27 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  05:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Apart from nothing else, the nomination rationale isn't policy based; the AfD shouldn't have been relisted, as there are no delete !votes, and the merger proposal could carry on via the talk page. Beyond that, the list appears to be notable, and very few entries are likely to fall off the list; equally, concerns of bloat are going to be amplified if a merger occurred. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I call for this AfD to be closed. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and close per Lukeno94. This is the worst re-listing I've ever seen.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's safe to assume that the AfD was relisted to break the rough tie between keeping and merging since per WP:AFD, a closing admin should assess the consensus to keep, delete, merge, redirect, or transwiki. It would be worth engaging the editors who supported merging to change to keeping it. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be closed as a keep since it satisfies notability. I think there is some merit to the idea of merging but that should be a separate discussion if anyone is particularly inclined to go down that route. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's more like, "While I have you all here..." to basically conclude the issue through this discussion rather than create a separate one. WP:AFD recommends merge-specific discussions to be set up in their own way, but since deletion was one possible outcome (as opposed to supporting or opposing a merge), we are here. For what it's worth, I think it is worth keeping as separate because it's not really a natural list to be found in the aggregator article, and there could be more lists like for 0% movies. With a stand-alone list, we can at least table the movies and make them sortable in different ways. This would take up more space than appropriate at the main article. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 20:36, 14 January 2014 (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.