Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optica (journal)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Optica (journal)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD removed without any reason given. Only sources are a press release, the journal's homepage, and an editorial in the journal itself. PROD reason still stands: New journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Changed to "keep", see below. --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep A respectable academic publication and it seems easy enough to find a source which confirms this. The worst case is that we would merge into another page such as The Optical Society per WP:ATD.  Please see WP:BEFORE.  Andrew D. (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, it exists; yes, there are press releases; yes, it seems to be respectable. No, that doesn't mean that it is notable. --Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Use of the delete function is not warranted as our editing policy is to preserve such information. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect/merge to The Optical Society. While I believe this journal will become notable in time, this seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON to me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing it to Keep after it's been found to be indexed in Science Citation Index and Current Contents. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect per Headbomb. Everymorning   talk  23:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect: Notability says: ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Fgnievinski (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I object deletion via PROD. According to guidelines a single editor's objection to PROD prevents the article from being deleted via PROD and leads to a potential AfD.
 * Indexing: There is no reason for this article to be suggested to be irrelevant. Keep in mind that is still a stub: There was not yet a section on indexing. I have just added it. Also, different to the claims of the editor who suggested the deletion request, of course the journal is already indexed. Like with any journal that is only a year old it is not yet listed in the impact factor lists of ISI and Scopus, but it is already e.g. in the Science Scitation index and as such pending for addition to the scitation index itself.
 * Regarding the publisher: OSA is a respectable and the most important and a community-driven, non-profit publisher for international scientific publications in the field of optics. This is proven by numbers of articles and scitations. It has clearly devoted a full editorial office and board for this journal which it has made clear and is campaigning for as their primary journal of high-quality optics. The journal is clearly backed by the scientific community as is shown by the list of editors across the most important institutions in optics around the world. All these fact are clearly visible from the references of the article.
 * The number of scitations to the articles in this journal within the first year, according to the ISI Web of Knowledge Index are very relevant.
 * Disclaimer: I am in no way financially connected to OSA, the journal or any competing journal and I have no publication interests in this journal. My interests lie in the quality of this article and the quality of the wikipedia in the field of optics. --Akriesch (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the proposed deletion has already been dismissed. The proposer then escalated by starting this new process — Articles for Deletion.  This new process is decided by consensus but it doesn't seem that there's consensus support for deletion by this method either.  Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Most of the above reasons for keeping the article are irrelevant (publisher, editor, editorial board, authors: WP:NOTINHERITED). However, the indexing in the Science Citation Index Expanded, unlikely as it is for a journal this young, does check out and makes the journal meet WP:NJournals. As there are other good faith !votes recommending redirecting the article, I cannot withdraw the nom, but I change my !vote to keep. As for BEFORE: I checked GScholar, but because of the general journal name that was not very helpful. I did not think of checking Thomson Reuters, given the young age of the journal. Clearly I was wrong about that. As defense I can only say that journal articles that start listing trivia (like number of articles published, or how notable the authors/board/whatever are) are usually a sure sign that the journal in question is not notable yet. --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.