Wikipedia:Please, put Pandora back in the box

This is an essay.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: Do not use the 'Pandora's box' argument as a reason to delete a redirect. Instead, argue against or for the merits of the redirect itself.

Prometheus and Hermes, seen here asking Pandora to supply a better argument.

RfD is a magical place, where magical pages called Redirects are discussed. These Redirects have the role of shuttling users right to the page they actually want. However, despite the seeming magic involved, RfD is not actually a place of myth-- and thus, the mythological Pandora's Box is not something you should concern your head about.

What is the Pandora's Box argument?

The Pandora's Box argument states that, if another user were to stumble across a bad redirect, it might encourage them to expect and/or make more bad redirects in a similar vein. As an example, if one user were to stumble across the redirect Tetя1s, they might be encouraged to make the redirect Cl0ck. Thus, in order to prevent the creation of these additional bad redirects, certain bad redirects shouldn't be made, and if found, should be deleted with impunity.

Okay, that makes sense! ...Right?

Maybe so, if you ignore the multiple problems the argument has. To wit:

This argument flies in the face of WP:OTHERSTUFF- instead of being concerned with the actual redirect in question, it asks editors to instead consider other redirects.
It also flies in the face of WP:CRYSTAL- just like one shouldn't use a crystal ball when writing an article, one shouldn't try to use one in discussions, and that includes RfD. Here, Pandora asks us to, instead of worrying about the present, worry about what editors MIGHT do in the future.
And finally, it fails the test of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, by failing to point out what's actually wrong with the redirect in question. Taken at face value, the actual text of Pandora could be applied to any redirect at all whatsoever, seeming to support the deletion of anything under the sun-- it requires its examples to actually direct it in a specific direction, and fails to explain what's actually wrong with the examples.

In short, Pandora, like other 'whataboutism' arguments, doesn't serve to actually point out what's WRONG with the redirect-- which is the most important part, given it's what we're actually here to discuss- and is far more concerned with what other people might do BECAUSE of a redirect's existence. The issue is, we at RfD don't rightly care what will happen if we "let this bad redirect stand"-- what we actually care about, is if it's actually a bad redirect or not.

Okay, so, what's some arguments I can use?

I'm glad you asked! When arguing against a redirect, try to keep in mind how well it actually serves the function of a redirect- being, a good redirect will catch common searches, and redirect them to the page the user was actually looking for. Thus, if it's highly unlikely that a human being would type a string of characters (in parlance, an "implausible" redirect), the redirect is pretty useless and should probably be deleted.

In addition, keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. There's plenty of articles going in depth as to things that don't belong on Wikipedia-- finding an applicable non-Pandora essay to cite will be an exercise left to the reader.

What is the Pandora's Box argument?

Okay, that makes sense! ...Right?

Okay, so, what's some arguments I can use?

See Also