Nominator's rationale: Only two entries, both of which are dubious and one of which is a redirect. Neither contain the words new religious movement or even "cult". Used to contain films, but films contains documentaries (not fiction) so I moved it up to works. Fiction will also almost always use the word cult, which is fine since it's fiction. So I don't really see the use of this... better to categorize by the specific type of fiction (film, novel), which we do elsewhere PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If G7 is applicable, I'm okay with deleting it now and placing the article in the right categories manually. If not, Support. Frost04:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Articles with tables in need of attention
Nominator's rationale: Unhelpful general category. Pages aren't added by a template or by some other automatic code, and the pages aren't sorted by some fixable logic, so it's just sends editors to try and figure out what some random editor thought wasn't ok (which might be nothing). Gonnym (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is defining for two articles here. The eponymous one and the perpetrator, which are both clearly linked. The other 3 items includent are three incidents that were allegedly done in retaliation for the incident, which is not even sourced in all of those articles. In the latter case, the relationship is not defining enough for that to justify a category. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily specific category. Only two entries, merge for now, should be re-merged into Criminal snipers, Swedish murderers and Swedish snipers. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This clearly goes against WP:CATPOV. It is being used to classify various political topics, historical events, etc as "Arab" racism (e.g. [1], [2], [3]) even when the articles in question make no such claim. The only way to justify using this category, as opposed to the relevant subcategories of Category:Racism and Category:Slavery (or other well-defined topics), is through a political argument that would be contentious by nature; not what categories are for. R Prazeres (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per examples provided in Racism in the Arab world to distinguish it from Category:Anti-black racism in Africa. Racism in the Arab world has been linked to notions of Arab supremacy, manifesting in various forms of discrimination against non-Arab communities. Historically, this has included the marginalization of groups such as the Berbers in North Africa, Kurds in the Middle East, and Black Africans in countries like Sudan. These patterns of discrimination have been documented in academic discussions addressing the cultural constructions of race and racism in the Middle East and North Africa. Furthermore, the ideology of Arab supremacy has been associated with political movements such as Ba'athism, which has been criticized for promoting aggressive forms of Arab ultranationalism. This has led to policies that marginalized non-Arab populations within countries like Iraq and Syria.
More examples: 1987 Dhein massacre (motivated by Arab supremacy where Muraheleen killed Dinka, same group then became the Janjaweed and committed Darfur genocide, then the group evolved again to become the Rapid Support Forces and they committed the Masalit massacres (2023–present), all motivated by anti-black sentiment based on Arab supremacy), Racism in Sudan (the article starts with the sentence:Sudanese Arabs are among the 600 ethnic groups who live there, and there are elements within Sudanese society that view black people and blackness with disfavor), Racism in Libya (article starts with:Libya is a predominantly Arab country that has traditionally held extremely racist views towards black-skinned). FuzzyMagma (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what you just explained above relies obviously on a particular point of view and interpretation. Even the 2023 RM discussion on Talk:Racism in the Arab world clearly opposed this kind of broad-stroke characterization, so we certainly can't deny that it's controversial, and yet this category precisely implements a version of this anyways. Your quoted examples from a select few articles merely demonstrate that these topics are already covered by Category:Racism and its country-specific subcategories. Indiscriminately grouping various historical acts of violence and slavery topics that merely involve Arabs or Muslims at some level into a modern political argument about Arab supremacist ideologies, based purely on editors' own judgement of the article content, widely violates WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Whether we agree or not with the validity of describing such things as Arab supremacy (I'm inclined to yes on some, no on others) is irrelevant: it's not Wikipedia's job to assert controversial conclusions and it's certainly not done via categories. R Prazeres (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
POV and OR! Not according to sources I included in the article. Here more for you:
'Delete - Keeping it will cause the creation of many other similar categories. We need to look for better alternatives like rename to Category:Racism in the Arab world. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all these aaaaa supremacy categories should be renamed as aaaaa supremacism. That would give a better idea of their rational content. For example, where should great replacement theory and Eurabia go? White supremacism would be a more accurate of their real meaning. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only exception who was heir to the throne of Aragon only was Charles, Prince of Viana. When renaming to Category:Heirs to the Spanish throne we can purge this article. Duke of Montblanc is an empty title indeed, the dukes did not actively rule Montblanc. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]