User:Lunamann/Please, put Pandora back in the box

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, but this argument flies in the face of WP:OTHERSTUFF. It, 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. In short, we don't rightly care what will happen if we "let this bad redirect stand"-- what we 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 essay to cite will be an exercise left to the reader.