Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lack's principle

:{{la|Lack's principle}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lack%27s_principle Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Lack's principle}})

Info could easily be merged in section David Lack Llightex (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect to David Lack. This is an exact duplication of the one-sentence paragraph in the main article (including refs). If and when someone feels moved in the future to expand this with lots of examples and discussion, a standalone article might become feasible. Keep following the below editor's laudable attentions.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - I've extended the article to explain the evolutionary reasoning behind the principle (without going into the maths), and have added some more citations. The principle applies to all reproducing organisms, not only to birds, and is already sufficiently sourced to show that it is notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

::Sweet, best outcome :) Struck above. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - Article now in good shape Porphyro (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. There's enough secondary coverage that it looks pretty solidly notable now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.