Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural probe (2nd nomination)

{{ns:0|S}}

:{{la|Cultural probe}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Cultural probe}})

Last AFD speedy closed in good faith. The nominator saw a prod, and decided to send to AFD for further discussion even though he himself wanted it kept. I want this deleted, though, as it's a mere dicdef with minimal sourcing, and I don't see it ever being more than a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Weak keep - brief though it is, there are plenty of sources about it, suggesting it may be a notable concept. (e.g. [http://www.alistapart.com/articles/culturalprobe/], [http://www.infodesign.com.au/usabilityresources/culturalprobes], [http://lltoolbox.eu/methods-and-tools/finding-opportunities/cultural-probes]) I'd say this is slightly more than a dictionary definition, although I'd prefer if there was somewhere we could merge it. Robofish (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Article on a notable topic contains the most essential information in the mean time, in stub form, until the article is grown upon. No problem there.--Coin945 (talk) 06:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - article has potential since reliable sourcing exists. I added one citation. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:22, 16 February 2012 (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.