This is a matter of debate, varying as much as the definition of what a
 "furry" is in the first place.  The definition that seems to be most
 applicable is that in order for a story, movie or show to be considered
 "furry", a primary character (or a significant number of the primary
 characters) must be a "furry".

 Another definition is that simply whatever stories tend to be popular among
 furfen (furry fans) that they consider to be "furry" are furry.  But that's
 hardly helpful, is it?  =) Cartoons with animal characters are often
 accepted as being "furry", for one thing.  Steve Gallacci's "Albedo" is
 usually considered "furry", unless you're from the group that believes that
 his characters are merely "humans in animal suits".  Many Disney movies
 might be considered "furry", such as their animated "Robin Hood".  Even
 though "Bambi" isn't an anthropomorph in shape, the characters in the movie
 talk with each other and have human-like emotions, and thus are considered
 "furry" by some.

 In a more recent Disney movie with a prominent "furry", "Beauty and the
 Beast", this is particularly a grey area; some consider it NOT to be furry,
 since the "Beast" was just a human changed into an animal-like form for
 most of the movie.  "The Little Mermaid" is another one of those fringe
 "furry" films if you want to use the broadest definition (since Ariel's
 body is part fish?  =.)

 Movies where "furry" creatures are merely the villains which the humans
 must fight are almost certainly not considered "furry".  =, Also, stories
 where an animal-like character may appear but is not one of the primary
 characters are not usually considered "furry", either.  For instance, Gnort
 doesn't make the Green Lantern comics "furry", even though he himself would
 fit the technical definition of a "furry character".