Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (3rd nomination)
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
— User:Erik, 13:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:CSC||WP:COMMONSENSE (Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists)