Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Vital Article page group

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  mark historical. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Vital Article page group


– (View MfD) &#8203;
 * ✗ plicit  01:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

These pages used to be trancluded to the main Vital Articles WikiProject page, but was never been used often and are now not used. Making the page historical is not appropriate as they provide little value, except for the WikiProject Vital Articles/Right/Participants page which is not being nominated for deletion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", but I'm relisting this discussion given the comment on the talk page. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  01:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Most of this looks like a web page design, maybe for the web page of a WikiProject, that was never finished. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Question - Is this MFD nomination part of an effort to revitalize a WikiProject that had previously existed and had fallen into disuse, and is the MFD nomination trying to clean out the rags and lint from the previous version of the project? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , Yes. Curbon7 (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Both. The WikiProject wasn't very active to begin with and have gone idle for more than a decade, so keeping these templates aren't going to have much historical use. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as per responses. These are an obsolete web page design in the form of subpages, which has been a problematic design approach in the past, and is not useful here.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Notified: WT:VIT, WT:Vital articles. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb }&#125;  talk 02:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep and mark historical. The nomination did not capture the full what is actually happening at the vital articles project, so pinging prior participant . Quoting from my comment at talk, these subpages were not long-unused modules part of some c. 2010 unfinished design effort. They were actively transcluded to the main project page until just last month, when the nominator began a major overhaul of the project's design, and I was actively monitoring/updating the to-do module until it suddenly went red on my watchlist. I would prefer that they be marked historical rather than deleted, as I have not yet looked over the new design very much, and I would like to be able to do so sometime to check that useful elements were not removed. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have struck my !vote and will re-examine the situation within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark historical for the sole reason that, if someone wants to view the history / past project of WP:PVITAL, they can do so without seeing a bunch of redlinks. Splitting all these graphical elements and css code into different subpages is pretty dumb, but it's how it was done. If we keep the subpages, barely any one will stumble upon them and be confused, and it's not like the servers get extra bytes from deleted pages. — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 17:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I also think that's an absolutely valid rationale for keeping the pages. Consider my comment as a support to PSW's proposal. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Mark Historical Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.