Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (3rd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Most, but not all of the arguments in this discussion for both deletion and retention include Wikipedia guideline- and policy-based rationales. Ultimately, this discussion has received ample input, and no consensus for a particular action has surfaced. A fair amount of discourse regarding the article's content has occurred here, such as limiting its scope, improving the management of the article, and moving it, among others, all of which can be continued on the article's talk page. North America1000 11:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

(I know it was kept previously and are knowingly creating another. I have considered all past arguments.) Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (t,c,l) 00:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) This article really conveys no information that cannot be found on RT's own pages, including but not limited to https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/ . If someone wants to find films with 100% on RT, surely the best option would be to go straight to RT instead of assuming Wikipedia has an article on the topic. This article feels redundant.
 * 2) It gives really no impression of encyc value - all encyc information on this topic can be found at List of films considered the best. I can understand that we have an article about this list and this list, but those are static. This article, however, is in constant need of dynamics and updating to current events - feels almost like a news feed providing extremely blank and pure information.
 * 3) Also, the list is wayyyy too long. Is it truly a notable accomplishment for a film to get a 100% rating when it is this common? Who says it is? Who says that 100% is a famously notable achievement?
 * 4) It smells of publicity for RT. I know RT is a widely respected website/publisher, but is this kind of detail really due? Of course, as said before, the article content cannot be undue to RT since that's what the title specifies - however, the title and thus the article as whole feels out of place in an encyc environment. RT is big, but are they this big?
 * Delete That the film that spawned the rebirth of the KKK, Birth of a Nation, is on this list, should cause the people who run the Tomato meter to question the validity of their rating system. However there is no reason to treat this rating engine as the ultimate say-so on everything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not seeing a policy- or guideline-based argument here. In regard to The Birth of a Nation, it is recognized for its production but critiqued for its racism. This is content written by Wikipedia editors that readers can access when they click on this film's title. There is commentary here that could be included in running prose. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, plus Rotten Tomatoes reviews include non-notable blogs. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  03:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 04:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete as an almost indiscriminate list of information. Many of these films only have a handful of reviews, and most I've never even heard of. Since RT is graded on approval/disapproval, the fact that the 5 critics who watched a certain movie said it was good tells me almost nothing.  Pinguinn     🐧   06:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the list is borderline indiscriminate. Please see my argument below for implementing a cutoff, especially considering that "100% rating" movies in general are well-discussed in reliable sources. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add, though it should be obvious: if this AfD succeeds, I will nominate List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes too for the same reasons. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (t,c,l) 09:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not quite sure where I stand on this one, but pinging participants of the previous AfDs: &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops. Left off the second AfD and closers: &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Question will there be a bot removing links to this if deleted? A few of my articles would link to it. Second point, nominator mentions List of films considered the best. Since the creation of the nominated list, I've always opposed it being merged with "List of films considered the best" since they're not the same thing- the fact that 20 out of 20 critics approve of a movie doesn't mean any of them think it's the best ever. Third point, for what it's worth, creator seems to have given up on wanting to keep it Ribbet32 (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep because there is significant coverage in reliable sources about films getting 100% ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. The next question is, is a list justified? Per WP:NOTESAL, "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 this has happened:, , , , . Now, this does not necessarily mean that the list has to be comprehensive, as I do agree that the list is too long as it is. What about determining a cutoff by community consensus? Obviously that has to be done for box-office articles, and we can do that here. Top 10? 25? 50? To address the nominator's points:
 * The fact that a similar list exists elsewhere is not a reason to have one here, especially considering the coverage about this particular recognition. This list can be of interest to readers and also be useful navigation in this regard. (EDIT: Reviewing this, it does not actually match this list at all. It is RT's curated list with adjusted scores and percentages less than 100%. So this is a false claim that these lists match.)
 * "100% rating" is distinct from "considered the best". On Rotten Tomatoes, 100% simply means every review for a film was positive and not negative. (There is no middle ground.) Regardless, as seen in coverage, films with this score are well-discussed. Now that I think of it, maybe a prose-based article with an embedded list of "top" films? The point is that the coverage about this specific score is especially distinct and abundant as it relates to the website itself.
 * As stated above, I agree that the list is too long and that a cutoff can be implemented.
 * As stated above, the score has gotten significant coverage, so we can avoid puffery. If anything, we need to discuss in this article why 100% is arbitrary. I know there is commentary out there that just one negative review removes the score and that a 99% film with 250 reviews is still more recognition-worthy than a 100% film with 25 films. This is the place for us to summarize that coverage. Rotten Tomatoes isn't going to do that critical assessment of themselves.
 * Essentially, we need to have a distinct space about 100% ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. It's too much to be captured at the website's article, but we can certainly reel in the list and boost the prose further. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep (updated from Comment) - I think that I mostly agree with 's comments above. Two options for cutting the list down: (a) only include movies which a secondary source has reported on being at 100% (rather than having Wikipedians scour the database); (b) a minimum number of reviews. "Movies which achieved a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on at least 50 reviews" for example. That way, once it's in, we don't need to reassess and the list isn't always changing. If it has 100% at 50, then our work is done. Ideally, we could find a couple sources to give us a number to use (this one, linked above, uses 100, but that would make for a very short list), but it wouldn't be the only list for which we had to use editorial judgment to select a threshold. Another option would just be to use "certified fresh" on top of 100%, which means at least 40 reviews for limited releases and 80 reviews for wide releases. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply Hmm, both these suggestions sound good for making the list less arbitrary and static. Make sure a 2nd source reports it as 100%, have a minimum number of reviews, and have a minimum time it must stay at 100%. Would surely make it more wikilike. That's what I'd suggest if this is kept. However, I don't change my stance, I still advocate deletion. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (t,c,l) 22:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * delete The only possible source for this is, well, Rotten Tomatoes, and given that it is an aggregation site, this is a dynamic list, albeit that it tends to change fairly slowly except for recently released films. Therefore even to the respect that much of the list is pretty stable, we're getting it from WP writers doing research in querying the site. Rhododendrites's suggestion is not completely off the wall, but (a) reports from secondary sources will tend to become dated; (b) it's not clear that there actually will be many such reports compared to the number of movies so ranked at any given time, and (c) setting a minimum number of reviews is arbitrary and still requires researching the site. This kind of list just isn't within our purview. Mangoe (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It is false to claim that there is original research here. WP:NOTESAL says, "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." A film with a 100% rating is directly verifiable. There is nothing here that, per WP:NOR, "serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Since original research is not happening here, a cutoff is still appropriate to implement. Furthermore, being "a dynamic list" is not grounds for deletion. Would we delete a list of tallest buildings because we keep building taller ones? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What you cite does not bear on the matter of research, and what we say about researching includes the drawing of new conclusions; but that is not the end of what research is. This article is either (a) a copy of some list from RT (which I gather it is not, but for the sake of argument...), in which case it's a copyright violation, or (b) it is the amalgamation of primary source data from that site, which is a form of research. Mangoe (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Erik's argument and the cites he links are solid. FloridaArmy (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You keep saying this in multiple discussions, as though (a) it were even true, which doesn't appear to be the case, and (b) it addressed the objections being raised. Could you please familiarize yourself with policy on this? Mangoe (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Policy is that substantial coverage in reliable independent sources establishes notability. See wp:gng. Erik has detailed some of the sources covering this subject and they clearly satisfy the criteria. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Move While this page has issues, it could be put to better use if it was made to something along the lines of "List of movies with an RT score higher than 95%" rather than just 100%. There are films that were formerly on this list that had 100% with over 150 reviews (Get Out, Lady Bird) but are now down to 99% based off literally one or two negative reviews. Perhaps there should be some info on the story behind those film's RT score drop as well? All I'm saying is that this page could have some potential that isn't being fully used. ☞ Rim < Talk 05:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriously? The list is already massive, and lowering the bar won't help with those issues- it will exacerbate that. Not to mention "higher than 95%"- simply 96% or anything above, or 95% inclusive- would be a completely arbitrary number invented by Wikipedians. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete This has always been WP:UNDUE, and ironically per above keep vote, unmaintainable- essentially WP:LISTCRUFT. "I don't like Birth of a Nation" isn't a valid delete argument by any stretch of the imagination, but points about WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the nominee's rationale are well-taken. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How is it undue weight? Films that have received 100% scores have been significantly covered in reliable sources, most recently Paddington 2. The list may be of indiscriminate length, but that does not mean deleting everything. Like we draw the line somewhere at listing the highest-grossing films, we would draw the line here somewhere. As it has been stated elsewhere, we could list just films whose perfect scores have been noted in secondary sources. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment On the first AfD this seemed like a keep. In the past few years the number of "contributors" from blogs and/or other non-notable sources seems to have swelled the numbers. As Rim mentioned above, you can have hundreds of "fresh" votes and all it takes is one person to knock it out of 100%. Took a look at one of the reviewers who knocked out a 100% movie and noticed they marked many 95%+ movies as rotten and many sub-10% movies as fresh. While we all have differing opinions, the concept of 100% fresh is just at the whim and control of one person. On the other hand, this is a verifiable list, as aggregated on RT. Unless there is a question as to the validity or mechanics of the counting/formula, these are significant numbers and values. My honest first opinion was to suggest deletion followed by the idea of having a companion "List of formerly 100% films" to negate the naysayers or trolls of the reviewers. Unfortunately that would be a bit indiscriminate and involve a bit of OR to determine how many freshes were there before the rotten.-- ☾Loriendrew☽  ☏(ring-ring)  22:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, we can have a paragraph about so-called "formerly 100%" films that are limited to those discussed in reliable sources. There shouldn't be more than a half dozen movies that qualify. The fact that there is significant coverage by reliable sources over people's anger about a 100% score being changed to 99% due to one negative review is worth covering on Wikipedia. Rotten Tomatoes is not going to get into that kind of commentary itself. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Erik's detailed and convincing analysis of the reasons for this list's continued existence, and per additional positive particulars submitted by Rhododendrites. This list deserves to survive on its own merits. It was created by Dr. Blofeld 4 years and 4 months ago [September 14, 2013] and has entailed a massive amount of time and effort (1,031 inline cites) in an extended endeavor to aid and expand film scholarship. It can be sorted alphabetically, chronologically and by number of reviews. Its loss would leave users of Wikipedia film resources bereft of the instantly available data that it provides, and of the ability to continue working for its improvement. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I do agree with the general sentiment that the list is indiscriminate in length, with some films having 100% based on only five reviews. Are you opposed to implementing some kind of cutoff, if the list is kept? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Although I don't advocate the deletion of already existing titles, I would certainly not oppose this list's reduction if that is the general sentiment. Its survival is the primary objective. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 17:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Since this is intended to be a continually growing list, one solution to the problem of excessive length may be a split into two lists, with 1999, 2000 or 2001 selected as the end-of-first-list, start-of-second-list years. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not a cutoff by number of reviews or an arbitrary number that we can copy from elsewhere? For example, in statistical sampling, 32 is the minimum sample size. Alternately, List of highest-grossing films cuts off at 50 movies. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Since Rotten Tomatoes was launched in August 1998 and, as has been already pointed out, the majority of the titles with heavy multiplicity of reviews were appended in the 2000s, it would seem that most of future additions will come from the future, rather than from the past. Thus 1999–2000–2001 may be considered appropriate points of division.
 * In proposing a list of pre-2000 and post-2000 films, I was primarily concerned with retaining a comparable chronological sorting capability between the two lists (each list would be forced into its own separate sorting by alphabet and by number of reviews). All such proposals are, of course, dependent on the survival of the list and consensus for division into separate lists. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep, but establish a review number criteria above 5, and sort the list starting with the 100% movies with the most reviews on top. Googinber1234 (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Better yet, revise the listing to highest total Top Critic reviews. Chances are many of us don't look to the likes of "Schmoes Know" for quality film analysis. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  02:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, MOS:FILM advises against citing Top Critics. And choosing five critics minimum, once again, would be a completely arbitrary number invented by Wikipedians, 32 as a sample size a novel synthesis. Ribbet32 (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete anything with over 1000 references to a single primary source is likely to be an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. Simply because people have wasted their time creating this monstrosity is not a reason to keep it. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 02:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I take it you're not interested in the many ways that have been proposed which would cut the list down? What about the list, with those restrictions, would be indiscriminate? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 02:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep Useful list for film buffs, and like Erik says it has the coverage, but the cut off point needs to be more like 15 or 20.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment How are the number of reviews other than an arbitray setting. At a minimum the article should be renamed to List of films with more than 5 reviews and a 100% rating on Rotton Tomatoes. However that is the very definition of indiscriminate. It is not based on a reliable source recognized body of work, but just a grab bag connection of work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Does not meet WP:LISTN and significant RS coverage not found. An indiscriminate collection of information and listcruft. The web site of Rotten Tomatoes is where this content belongs, where it would also be most up to date. Housing such content here is not useful or helpful to the readers. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG and serves as a useful directory. Shouldn't really get rid of anything that has high accessibility. JAG  UAR   12:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: There seems to be some disagreement about whether or not a cutoff is appropriate. WP:CSC says, "...one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list." WP:COMMONSENSE itself says, "Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. Being able to articulate "common sense" reasons why a change helps the encyclopedia is good, and editors should not ignore those reasons because they don't include a bunch of policy shortcuts. The principle of the rules—to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive—is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment." The point is, obviously editors elsewhere on Wikipedia have to determine a cutoff when it comes to other kinds of lists, like list of tallest buildings. Reliable sources focus on what movies have the "most" complete set of positive reviews, the most recent being Paddington 2. That shows an interest in movies that have the score and the highest number of reviews. We can try to find a rule of thumb like what the biggest list of 100% movies on RT has been, or what 100%-rating movie with the least reviews has been mentioned in sources. If there's nothing solid, there's nothing wrong with an arbitrary cutoff. We editors decide by consensus a way to make a list more discriminate, per what I quoted above. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Lady Bird is a perfect illustration of why this article is unsustainable. It actually won a Rotten Tomatoes award for having the best score ever (100% with 196 reviews)... and then the 197th review came in, and it was negative, so it fell to 99%. It's an entirely arbitrary achievement (since Rotten Tomatoes only contains a subset of movie reviews) and one that is subject to change at any time - who is going through this article making sure the scores are still 100%? It's just not well suited to the wiki format, and works better as a dynamic database hosted by Rotten Tomatoes. Smurrayinchester 15:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. This list is unmanageable and the fact that many of the films listed only have a few reviews makes it of very little if any encyclopedic value. Death Race 2050 is on there and thats clearly not one of the better films ever made. Since films can be added or subtracted daily based on the whims of whatever internet troll posts a review its kindof pointless to have an article here that updates it. Just link to the actual RT page at the Rotten Tomatoes article and be done with it. Creating some arbitrary cutoff point to decide on its inclusion smacks of original research so thats a non-starter. Spanneraol (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Keep, but MAYBE include some reliable third-party sources
 * Dpm12 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep but cull. This is an interesting list and useful for moviegoers. I have often wanted to see the all time list of movies that got 100% on Rotten Tomatoes - like me I'm sure most of you are active on Wikipedia because you're information junkies - and I wanted to make sure I've seen them all. This discussion motivated me to go to the Rotten Tomatoes site to see if the site allows me to do just that.  After some hunting on the desktop site, I found this link for the best of Rotten Tomatoes: [] The problem is, Rotten Tomatoes doesn't limit the list to movies that got 100% - you'll see that they include movies that go down into the 80%s.  There's a background weighting algorithm to more fairly weight movies that get more reviews. That's why Wizard of Oz is first on the list with 99%.  So, there's no easy way to use that site to see a list of movies at 100%.  Also, the default is just the top 100 overall, and the filtering options only let you select by year or by genre - there's no way to replicate the list the way this Wikipedia list would do it - and the year sorting is a bonus.  You can go back in time and view them all in reverse order.  Also pertinent to our discussion - Rotten Tomatoes only lists movies that have at least 40 reviews. Going back to this list and the related AfD discussion, I agree that the list as is is unsupportable.  Many new movies are front loaded with positive revues because the friendly critics attend private screenings, and the reviews drop once the movies get wider release.  Their 40 cutoff number is most likely to address this.  So maybe we should use the same cutoff of 40?  I think that eventually Paddington 2 is going to lose its 100% score, due to an attention seeking critic who hosts a blog, but when that happens it will be news.  Finally, the number of reviews is the hardest number to maintain, but once a movie hits 40 reviews and makes the cut, it can be added, but others will also be watching the almost inevitable fall from perfection, and off the list it goes.  Movies older than a year are not likely to have their review totals change, so that part shouldn't be too hard to update. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:29, 24 January 2018 (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.