This article was purged along with most other identity categories in 2007. In the original discussion, many reasons were brought up to keep it, yet it was deleted. Also see this, this, this, and this. I hope in good faith we can keep this category this time around. Frigyes06 (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution. Please review this page on how to comment on deletion reviews, as "Speedy close" is not an option (because we are not discussing whether the topic should be discusses, but we are discussing the original decision). Maybe you were looking for "Endorse"? Frigyes06 (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation subject to another CFD, and specifically not subject to WP:G4. I do not see value in overturning a 16-year-old deletion discussion, but 16 years is a lot of time for consensus to change and the consensus in the prior CFD's was not exactly strong. FrankAnchor14:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, it existed peacefully for over seven years starting in April 2013 until it was G4'd in late 2020 and 2021. —Cryptic14:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since there are relatively few people who care about user categories, that tends to happen. Although I'm surprised Black Falcon didn't G4 it on sight when they edited it in 2017. Anyway, endorse since no actual reason for overturning is provided. If this is overturned I will be bringing it back to CfD. * Pppery *it has begun...17:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The Gay Wikipedians category was reinstated, and I'd argue it's very similar to this case. I don't see why this category shouldn't be reinstated too. - Demomantf2 — Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? This category was (wrongly IMO) kept in August 2007, and then deleted in a later discussion in October 2007. While admittedly 2 months is a bit short for renominating after a keep closure by modern standards, the existence of the earlier discussion is not a justification to overrule the later one. * Pppery *it has begun...19:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair point. However, I'd argue that the reinstatement of the "Gay Wikipedians" category set a precedent. I've updated my argument accordingly. Demomantf2 (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently the two admins who G4-ed this long after the so-called precedent didn't consider it to invalidate the CfD, whereas they did when I attempted to G4 Category:Pansexual Wikipedians. Perhaps that's because "furry" and "gay" are different enough from each other that a decision for one does not bind the other in either direction. And it's suspicious that this DRV is the only page you've ever edited on Wikipedia. * Pppery *it has begun...21:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was the admin of both the Keep in Aug 2007 and the Delete in Oct 2007. I will note that the August keep was the result of a large group nomination, whereas the October delete was the result of a more focused discussion. As noted, this was 16 years ago so my memory has faded a bit. After Midnight000118:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per WP:USERCATNO. An appropriate RfC may change that guideline, but for now, it clearly violates Categories which group users on the basis of irrelevant likes and arguably violates Categories which group users by advocacy of a position and/or Categories that are divisive, provocative, or otherwise disruptive as well. Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It might, but I'm not sure "Category:Wikipedian accountants" is that far from here. I'd expect someone from this community to know a lot about it. And it is a notable subject. Hobit (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as the 2007 discussion still holds relevance (This is another notice of self-identification category, not intended for collaboration.—perfectly relevant argument that could have been made yesterday), and no significant new information has come to light since then that would justify recreation.—Alalch E.23:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation subject to a new CFD, agreeing with User:Frank Anchor but not saying "as per". Consensus can change in sixteen years while Jupiter goes around the Sun one-and-one-half times.
Keep deleted per the arguments presented by Stifle, Jclemens, and Alalch E.: I have nothing more to add on the matter besides the fact I agree with all of them. SportingFlyerT·C00:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I created Category:WikiProject Furry participants, as noted in the intro of the linked XFD. It was deleted C1 - empty, in 2008. Someone restored it in 2013 by adding the category to a userbox. The WikiProject is currently tagged as "semi-active". So my question is - What sort of collaboration is restoring this category intended to do? Is this merely a user-page self-label, which can be done by a Userbox, and should not have a category? It seems like it. If you want to self-label on your userpage, by adding a notice, go for it, per WP:USERPAGE and WP:UBX. But the categorization system should not be used for this. Categories are not "tags", and should not be used in that way. See the last line of WP:CATSPECIFIC. - jc3710:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline to hear the case. I know; not one of the standard options here, but DRV is essentially an appeal, and as such, must follow a timely submission by the appellant. While we don't have a set statute of limitations in place, I think I speak for many here when I say that 16 years is far too long to either endorse or overturn a CfD closure. Community views have changed, the people involved have changed, and most importantly, the relevant policies have changed. This should be taken to an RfC on WT:Overcategorization/User categories, where an update to our existing WP:USERCATNO guideline can be discussed and agreed to. Once a new policy or guideline is in place, the old CfD is implicitly vacated, and the recreation of the category then depends on the revised guideline, rather than on an outdated CfD. Until then, keep deleted is the default disposition, although I don't think G4 can still be automatically applied. Owen×☎19:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation I don't see the problem with this, and the CFD in 2007 actually seems to have had consensus trending more towards keep than delete. EggRoll97(talk) 03:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation an XfD from 2007 isn't binding on anyone. It may well go back to CfD and get deleted again, but I think that's fine. Hobit (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
