A few random comments, that may appear in a probable deletion review:
This closing reminds me of the overturned RfC closing that led to this.
However, this is WP:CFD, and probably not the place to determine how and where to clean up all of whatever may or may not have been left from an RFC (and its closing and re-closing).
If that is so, an opinion should not have been rendered. Is this the right forum or not? Notice, as it was pointed out above by several people, that the category was already the subject of discussion at its project page. The nominator could have continued the discussion there. Instead it was brought here.
Those who suggest that this could be kept, mostly also agreed that it needed to be renamed/repurposed in light of the reverted RFC closure. Which, in category terms, essentially involves removal of the existing category, and re-creation under the new name.
This is an entirely novel definition of "renaming". Renaming a category involves ... editing the category name ... not removal and recreation, this would be absurd.
And in the discussion below, there is no consensus for it to be (re-)created/renamed.
??? Clarify? "Recreated" and "renamed" are not the same thing. Which one is the "no consensus" applying to? And if it applies to renaming, how is the "no consensus" evident? It is as valid, or more valid, to state that there is no consensus to delete.
From here, I would suggest starting a discussion as to whether a tracking category for the parameter(s) in question should be created, and if so, what the name of it should be.
Irrelevant. Unless there is a new guideline regarding the creation of tracking\maintenance categories that I am unaware of. 98.0.246.242 (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
