User:Teratix/Discussions about redirects are costly

There is a longstanding essay reminding editors that redirects are cheap: however much of a waste of space you think they might be, their existence doesn't even come close to straining the servers and we don't need to worry about performance. There is a counter-essay noting redirects can be costly: they may need to be updated as their target article changes, they can be degraded by vandals and misguided editors like any other page, and often they really didn't need to be created in the first place.

But if we care about cost, it's not the cost of the redirect itself we should be worried about. It's the cost of arguing over the redirect in the first place.
 * RfDs are costly: They cost the nominator time and energy to write rationales for deletion. It costs other editors time and energy to review the nominations and discuss. They cost administrators time and energy to review the discussion and work out there is a consensus to delete, keep, or retarget, or a need to relist.
 * Opposing RfDs (or supporting unpopular RfDs) is costly. It costs the dissenter time and energy to write their counter-argument and, in turn, costs others time to write further rebuttals. It prevents administrators from simply using soft deletion or SNOW-closures, and costs them time and energy to review a contentious discussion to work out whether there is a consensus to keep or delete.

What does this imply for editors?
 * Don't start RfDs unless the benefits outweigh the costs.
 * Don't dissent in RfDs unless the benefits outweigh the costs. This might very well apply even if starting the RfD in the first place was unjustified.
 * "Redirects are cheap", on its own, is a terrible reason to oppose an RfD. Because dissenting in RfDs carries a cost, once an RfD has begun you should only oppose if keeping the redirect will grant some benefit, not merely if it will cost very little.