http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/14187/vi-vim-and-vixens is currently marked as "on hold" pending a discussion on meta. Given the link embedded in that message, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that I would see a justification of that decision on the far side of the link.
I would argue that it is the responsibility of the relative handful of people who set a proposal as a duplicate to prime exactly that discussion on meta. (and marked as feature request for that reason) Vim questions: do they belong to Stack Overflow or Super User? is a start of A discussion, but it predates the current stack exchange model.
I'd like to argue my point of view about the vim site, but it seems to me that there's something not quite right about even needing to do that at this point. (EDIT: I see the following is not accurate, I had misunderstood the source of the 'duplicate' mark, which I think just makes my point above stronger) Are we seriously breaking the area51 system and submitting new sites essentially to a vote of active meta.SO users, rather than the clarification/committing/beta system advertised on area51 itself?