Rough consensus (WhatIsConsensus?) provides for peer review of proposed standards.
The insistence on working code guarantees that:
This may at first sound like WorseIsBetter, but it does not carry the same negative conotations.
The equivalent for a wiki is "rough consensus and working content". It is of no use to create a ShallowPage for some topic, even if there's rough consensus that the topic is important, if there's insufficient working content. It is of no use to argue against deletion by pointing out all the things that could be written about a topic - it is better to spend that time writing content on that topic.
The insistence on working content guarantees that:
Equally, one needs rough consensus as to exactly what the topic of a page is, if the title alone does not guarantee this. However, exact consensus is not needed - details can be dealt with later on, as they arise.