Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap
|This page in a nutshell: Redirects take up minimal system resources, so it doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around.|
There are similarities with what is stated at WP:RFD: "Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around." In fact, a redirect page may even avoid the creation of duplicate articles on the same subject, and thereby actually save data space.
- Deleting a redirect, as with any page, actually adds very slightly to the size of the database (since deleted pages are not really purged from the database, just hidden from public view). Unless a redirect is actively misleading or gets in the way of a pagemove, there is little point in deleting it.
- However, this does not mean we should preemptively create redirects for their own sake. See Wikipedia:Redirect for more.
- On the other hand, cross-namespace redirects make processing Wikipedia content more complex for bots and scripts.
- Creating redirects can help preserve the option of splitting an article when desired; candidates for such include articles dealing with a geographical topic with different names at differing periods of history, articles that are set indices, or articles that cover multiple characters in a book. (see MOS:REDIR)
- Creating redirects from existing articles can be valid alternatives to pursuing deletion discussions, saving discussion time where a redirect is a legitimate and likely outcome. Consensus should still be sought via discussion (or the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, for less contentious topics).