Deletion of Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics

Comment: There's definitely a notable topic here, as the references provided above demonstrate. The only question is whether it is easier to fix up the current page or go the  route
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: The clutter is gone, and with it the concerns about possible |Original Research. We have by now more than enough references to establish notability. No policy-based argument for deletion stands
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: Not a shred of a -REASON|reason to delete.  We don't delete articles because they were written in 2003.  We don't delete articles because their original authors have moved on – that will happen to every article in time.  We don't delete articles because they are poor – see  and .  And we don't delete articles to on't feed the troll|feed demons.  For an example of an external article of a similar kind in a reputable work, see the ''https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/statphys-statmech/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DEL||WP:IMPERFECT||WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:D)

Comment: I see no reason to delete. The article has relevant and respected sourcing. . The article passes . "Original writer has long since gone?" This is mot a valid reason to delete.  so there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTCLEANUP||WP:GNG||WP:NOTPAPER)