When faced with an article that lacks notability, it's generally preferable to redirect instead of delete. There's no reason to hide something just because its importance is unclear.

Since the writing of this essay, this practice has been adopted as a Wikipedia policy.

• Hides the article history, reducing transparency and detracting from the open nature of the project.
• Widens the gap between administrators and new users with a process that only administrators can perform, review, and reverse.
• Requires either administrative help or duplicated work when evidence of notability becomes available.
• Often requires considerable paperwork and bureaucracy, consuming editorial and administrative effort that could be used elsewhere.
• Tends to polarize the community despite a shared objective of improved encyclopedic content.

• Is an open process that can be reviewed and undone by anyone.
• Sends searches and old links to a useful target instead of a "not found" page. Although not a factor in article inclusion, usefulness is a factor in redirect inclusion.
• May take less system resource, as readers are directly brought the page they may be looking for rather than having them find it themselves.
• Can be done boldly with no need for discussion.

• Wikipedia:Pure wiki deletion system
• Wikipedia:There is no deadline
• User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better
• Meta: Redirectionism
• Meta: Keep history

{{User redirect}} creates