Deletion of Quantum thermodynamics

Comment: I agree that the article is a poorly written POV mess, but that is not a reason to delete the article ().  The question you need to answer at AfD is whether or not the subject is notable, and this subject most certainly is.  If there are POV problems, or other quality problems with the article then the appropriate cleanup templates should be placed on the article and it should be fixed, but not deleted
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:RUBBISH)

Comment: Entire books have been written on this subject http://books.google.com/books/about/Quantum_Thermodynamics.html?id=NaCjwZCnI_gC link and major universities are offering courses dedicated to the study of Quantum Thermodynamics http://www.mit.edu/~beretta/QuantumThermodynamicsOutline.htm link.  I could provide more links and countless references from reliable sources, but I don't think there is a need here.  The references in the article could use some work, but there is no need for an AfD discussion on this.   exists for a reason.  This article should be kept and this discussion closed per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:SNOW)

Comment: per Trovatore.  The material at Quantum statistical mechanics is mainstream and foundational -- see eg the book by Tolman in print since the 1930s. This new material at Quantum thermodynamics ... isn't.  Sure, there's scope for improvement at Quantum statistical mechanics -- for example more chat about ''why'' this might be the natural transposition into the quantum world of the understanding and arguments developed in classical statistical mechanics (at the moment the qsm article rather baldly just sets out formulas).  There's also long-running discussion, primarily carried on by philosophers, as to what extent it is appropriate to say statistical mechanics "explains" thermodynamics (in fact if you look up either term in say the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, that's what the philosophers of science seem most keen to discuss); our article Philosophy of thermal and statistical physics (which could do itself with quite a lot of attention) probably should be extended to reflect more of that discussion.  But the new material in this new article appears not particularly mainstream and more than somewhat flaky.  If it's merged to places, I recommend handling it with some considerable care: care to separate what's mainstream and what's not, care about , and care not to reflect a possibly garbled account of one lab's position as ''the'' story of quantum thermodynamics.  In short: at a quick first glance, not at all comfortable with the material in this new article
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: The arguments advanced by the keepers are spurious. The article appears to be a oatrack on which to hang an arXiv paper and a set of course lectures notes. Not every arXiv paper or lecture course is notable; we need many hundreds if not thousands of citations to justify an article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)