Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Vital Article page group

Objection
@Explicit @CactiStaccingCrane, why was there no notice of this nomination to WT:VIT? Deleting a bunch of the project's pages without notifying the project calls into significant question whether the consensus for deletion is valid (had proper notice been given, I would have come here). The nomination also did not capture what is actually happening at the project. 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.

These pages should have been 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. Given the consensus concerns, Explicit, could you please reverse the deletion so that these may be historical instead? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have undeleted the pages and relisted the discussion. ✗  plicit  01:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)