The result of the debate was Re-target to Incarceration in the United States#Security levels. If other candidates for the term can be found, people are welcome to convert to a dab. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This RFD is more of the "discussion" side than the "deletion" side. A maximum security prison is not the same thing as a super-maximum security prison...in fact, from the article, I get the idea they're supposed to be -more- secure than a maximum security. I think it should be retargeted, but I really don't know where: prison, Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Security_levels, or even making it a stub. So I'm bringing it here to talk about it. UsaSatsui (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Incarceration in the United States#Security levels. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to dab and link to prison system articles for prison systems that use the term "maximum security prison" or "maximum security penitentiary" (etc) officially or in vernacular. The US is not the only place where there are things referred to as maximum security joints. 70.51.8.103 (talk) 06:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ^(talk) 23:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of many such redirects created by the same user in order to avoid red links on disambiguation pages. Most of these have the unfortunate side effect of creating self-redirects for the pages they point to. EncycloPetey (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion moved Due to the large number of redirects this issue concerns, this discussion has been moved here, as EncycloPetey suggested on my talk page. Neelix (talk) 22:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a typo. Megavolts per square metre? The target article counts signal strength in voltage per metre, not per square metre. 66.102.80.212 (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - would the signal strength vary with the inverse square of the distance from the transmitter to receiver? The 'signal strength' of a torchlight or a siren follows the inverse square law. An antenna must have length, and that's obviously what the article is referring to, but the signal can be described as an electrical potential per unit of surface area (of the hypothetical sphere with the transmitter at centre). - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the power, not the voltage, that would vary with the inverse square of the distance. I'd expect W/m², mW/m² and the like'd make sense, but voltage per square metre does not. Voltage, as a potential difference, must be measured between two points - voltage per area??? no... --99.245.244.176 (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Move redirect to MW/m² --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking back over the edit history of signal strength, what appears to have happened here is that the article originally referred to MV/m² before later being corrected to MV/m. However, nobody appear to have updated the redirect. I'd therefore suggest renaming it either to MV/m, or to MW/m² per Blanchardb. 129.206.102.182 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not sure what renaming / moving this (or any other) redirect is supposed to accimplihh as it would amount to creating anew redirect from MW/m² but leave MV/m² as double redirect behind. If a redirect from MW/m² to signal strength is helpful, it can be created, but MV/m² should direct to neither and just be deleted.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.