Deletion of List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (3rd nomination)

Comment: anything with over 1000 references to a single primary source is likely to be an  collection of information.  Simply because people have wasted their time creating this monstrosity is not a reason to keep it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: Does not meet  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: This has always been , and ironically per above keep vote, unmaintainable- essentially . "I don't like ''Birth of a Nation''" isn't a valid delete argument by any stretch of the imagination, but points about  and the nominee's rationale are well-taken
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:LISTCRUFT||WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: There seems to be some disagreement about whether or not a cutoff is appropriate.  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."''  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:CSC||WP:COMMONSENSE)

Comment: 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 , ''"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: https://qz.com/1138834/rotten-tomatoes-best-reviewed-movie-ever-is-now-lady-bird/, http://ew.com/movies/2017/12/28/rotten-tomatoes-100-percent-fresh-movies-2017/, https://screenrant.com/movies-hundred-percent-rt/, http://www.hindustantimes.com/hollywood/here-are-the-7-movies-that-scored-a-100-rating-on-rotten-tomatoes-in-2017/story-0QCvIFjsA7lcr0wxePgcLN.html, https://www.thewrap.com/movies-100-percent-fresh-rotten-tomatoes-citizen-kane-get-out/. 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTESAL)

Comment: passes  and serves as a useful directory. Shouldn't really get rid of anything that has high accessibility
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)