Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of devices to screen telephone calls


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   merge to Call screening. J04n(talk page) 21:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

List of devices to screen telephone calls

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced, no indication of meeting WP:LISTN. The inclusion criteria are uselessly vague. I'd say we should merge it into Call screening, but none of the content is worth merging. Huon (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion criteria is not vague and contributes to the working knowledge of participants seeking the definitons and information of historial or current call rejection or blocking techniques. There are many links to valuable information within wikipedia from this page. The search terms "List of devices to screen telephone calls" can be found on google's search results page that links to the result page at wiki. This is obviously a working search group and is very active. Deletion of the page would break that search path and disrupt the findings "people" are searching for. Call Screening referred to above doesn't list any of the items featured on List of devices to screen telephone calls page. Guest8566 (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2013
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to Call screening, which should at least link to the articles in the list and explain them. Maybe not a suitable topic for a list, or a good title for a redirect; if that's a problem it could be moved to a title such as "Call screening devices" before merging. Peter&#160;James (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree it it should be merged. Both articles are short, so they could be merged together.   D r e a m Focus  14:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.