Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principle of good enough

:{{la|Principle of good enough}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Principle_of_good_enough Stats])

:({{Find sources|Principle of good enough}})

WP:MADEUP –Be..anyone (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. The "made up one day" rationale for deletion is refuted by a quick GBooks search, which shows that the concept of "good enough" software design has been documented and discussed for close to two decades if not longer, see [http://books.google.com/books?id=wTtsAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA174&dq=%22good%20enough%22%20software&pg=PA174#v=onepage&q=%22good%20enough%22%20&f=false] [http://books.google.com/books?id=C9vvHV1lIawC&lpg=PA56&dq=%22good%20enough%22%20software&pg=PA56#v=onepage&q=%22good%20enough%22&f=false] [http://books.google.com/books?id=bz_cl3B05IcC&lpg=PA59&dq=%22good%20enough%22%20software&pg=PA59#v=onepage&q=%22good%20enough%22%20software&f=false] [http://books.google.com/books?id=DozsD0zxb5wC&lpg=PA93&dq=%22good%20enough%22%20software&pg=PA93#v=onepage&q=%22good%20enough%22%20&f=false] [http://books.google.com/books?id=ifReAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA213&dq=%22good%20enough%22%20software&pg=PA213#v=onepage&q=%22good%20enough%22%20software&f=false] --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and close - This meets WP:GNG and is not a new or "made up" concept whatsoever. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep - this is a pretty well-established concept, it's been around since at least the late 1990s Mtmoore321 (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22principle+of+good+enough%22 427,000 Google results] for something "made up one day"? Not bad. Not bad at all! ;) Keep, of course. --Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. The definition in the article is not the same as that used in the references. [http://www.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/magazine/17-09/ff_goodenough?currentPage=all Wired magazine], [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=C9vvHV1lIawC&lpg=PA56&dq=%22good+enough%22+software&pg=PA56&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22good%20enough%22&f=false Software Craftsmanship], [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bz_cl3B05IcC&lpg=PA59&dq=%22good+enough%22+software&pg=PA59&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22good%20enough%22%20software&f=false Fundamental Concepts for the Software Engineer], [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DozsD0zxb5wC&lpg=PA93&dq=%22good+enough%22+software&pg=PA93&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22good%20enough%22%20&f=false Software Creativity], and [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ifReAQAAQBAJ&lpg=PA213&dq=%22good+enough%22+software&pg=PA213&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22good%20enough%22%20software&f=false Software War Stories] all imply that customers will use products that are good enough for their own purposes, regardless of the availability of more advanced products. The principle described does not imply that the evolution of technology is driven by user requirements. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:50, 14 March 2014 (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.