Deletion of Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments

Comment: Maybe I missed it, but I think that those claiming POV problems have not mentioned one single example of something in the article that they think needs to be fixed to achieve NPOV. As GoRight says, "Calorimetry is not a POV." The nomination statement says that this article gives undue weight to one aspect of a subject; but covering specific aspects of subjects is just what we're supposed to do per This article looks to me to be reasonably NPOV or probably fixable by editing a few specific sentences if anyone does point out any POV problems. I would be very surprised if there weren't a significant amount of literature on the topic of calorimetry in cold fusion, since it's an important aspect of what has been a widely-publicized, controversial and intriguing topic.  Here are '''secondary sources''' I'm finding from simple web searches; quotes are Google snippets
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SUMMARY)

Comment: This is not a POV fork and Pcarbonn, while he created the page, was not the principal contributor. There has been a continual problem with Cold fusion that reliably sourced detail has been excluded from the article because of alleged |undue weight. Creating more specific articles brought back in |summary style is the classic and suggested solution. The editors of Cold fusion were not notified of the AfD. I'll fix that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:SUMMARY)

Comment: Fails , redundant and biased version of cold fusion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Entirely a POV fork, and the material can easily be incorporated into cold fusion.  This was created by an Arbcom-banned editor while the main article was locked due to edit warring, and further edited by a COI editor describing his own work.  There are few reliable sources that cover the topic; and no secondary ones that I'm aware of except for a brief mention in a biased book by a CF advocate. If the article is going to be more than a couple of paragraphs long, it's always going to consist of a lot of primary papers on both sides of the debate combined with a healthy degree of |OR and ynth|synthesis.  There's absolutely no reason why the points can't be covered in cold fusion.  You could make the same (probably stronger) arguments in favor of nuclear detections in cold fusion experiments or experimental error in cold fusion experiments.  As for Abd's comment, ''There has been a continual problem with Cold fusion that reliably sourced detail has been excluded from the article because of alleged undue weight.'', this is best handled in the CF article, at the RS noticeboard, or via dispute resolution, not by creating a separate article where we hold the sources to far lower standards than we do on the main article.  Besides, the verifiable material and related references in this fork are largely covered in Cold_fusion#Non-nuclear_explanations_for_excess_heat...despite Abd's claims of "exclusion" of this material, no one has attempted to add more information to this section since it was created a month ago, so exclusion is totally unproven.   In addition, the topic itself is not notable as something covered in reliable, independent secondary sources.  It's barely notable by its coverage by primary sources.  The two redlinks above are more notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:S)

Comment: No idea (and I don't much care) how it got here, but the calorimetry is a crucial aspect to the whole CF story. This article deserves to exist separately for the |undue weight reason already cited
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)