The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was As there is no consensus to delete this redirect I will retarget it to Space Shuttle retirement. Ruslik_Zero 09:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Next shuttle mission → STS-133 (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This redirect was intended to be pointed to the next Space Shuttle mission, but now the Shuttle has been retired there is no next mission. I started a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#Next shuttle mission redirect suggesting retargtting somewhere, and later refined my suggestion to Space Shuttle retirement or Space Shuttle retirement#Space Shuttle successors and legacy. In the discussion there is support for both retargetting and for deletion. The current target, being the 3rd last mission, is not a good target (it hadn't been updated, I discovered it while collating similar redirects to make keeping them updated easier). My recommendation is to retarget to the retirement page (either to the lead or the section) as stats show the redirect is getting ~20-30 hits a month consistently even since retirement, and the retirement page educates readers about there being no future missions. The delete position is that as there are no future missions there is no target that is not misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there is no "next" mission, so there is no suitable target. --GW… 22:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Space Shuttle retirement. I think of two pieces of information one may want on this request: (1) the news about space exploration and (2) the news about Shuttle program. The proposed target gives enough info on the second point and links on the first one, so it's the optimal choice. I wouldn't redirect to specific sections, as that would be too narrow. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Wikipedia ought to represent verifiable knowledge, or help our readers to get there. This page served that purpose for many years. As there is now no next mission, we ought to simply keep the encyclopedia high quality and delete the Redirect. We can clean up any various WP pages that refer to the redir as part of ongoing cleanup. N2e (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirects don't just serve as internal links, but as targets for internal and external searches and from external links and bookmarks, etc. We have no control over these. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that we can delete something doesn't mean that we actually should delete it. Providing knowledge isn't limited to writing high quality accurate articles, it also involves keeping things intact, so until deletion is absolutely necessary, it's better be avoided. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I appreciate the reasoning regarding searches, but don't feel this exact wording is what most searchers unaware of shuttle retirement would use. And we can't add redirects for every possible variation of, "The Next Space Shuttle Mission Planned For Launch." Note this redirect is nowhere on the top list of google hits for "next shuttle mission." As regards any external links ... breaking them now might be the best approach! And of course we should fix internal links. (sdsds - talk) 06:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How on earth can making it harder for readers to find articles be a good thing, let alone the "best approach"!? Thryduulf (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.. I don't really understand the justification behind deleting this (it doesn't seem to satisfy any of WP:REDIRECT#DELETE). Why not just redirect it somewhere helpful, like Space Shuttle retirement or List of space shuttle missions? Mlm42 (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget: I think redirecting it to Space Shuttle retirement is the best option. At least until the number of hits on the redirect is 0 for a set time period.--NavyBlue84 23:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There will almost never be zero hits for any redirect as various bots, and search engine spiders, etc, usually give 2-3 hits a month. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No articles link to it, there are precious few hits (and most of them are, I suspect, us), and there will never be another mission; I fail to see the point of keeping it. Colds7ream (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an FYI: the RfD discussion header template automatically links to the previous month's report when you click on "stats", so those hits are not a result of the RfD.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And further to that, the comments I make about hits are based on my viewing of the stats going back several months, I think to August or July. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Space Shuttle retirement. Redirects that go to pertinent information are always a good thing. Redirects are cheap, and there's simply no compelling reason to delete this one.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.