Deletion of Convenience

Comment:  is rarely a reason to delete because the point of that policy is that we should group topics by their meaning rather than not covering them at all.  So what alternative headings might there be for this major concept?  Fit for purpose is a vogue phrase in the UK lately but is a redlink.  Labour-saving and time saving are red links too.  It seems then that this is the main article and so we should develop it under this existing title.  But are there sources from which to work?  There are search links conveniently placed above and they soon reveal some good sources.  ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jh2RAANQtf0C Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience'' has a chapter on the particular topic of convenience.  ''http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yDXMaBc2cI0C The Value of Convenience'' is an entire book which takes a broad philosophical approach.  The paper, ''http://www.mendeley.com/research/toward-construct-convenience-consumer-research/ Toward the construct of convenience in consumer research'' seems to be one of many papers analysing the concept in a multi-dimensional way in the context of consumer research and marketing.  The relevant policy here then is not  but  and so the article should be kept for improvement
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF||WP:IMPERFECT)