Deletion of Optica (journal)

Comment: Most of the above reasons for keeping the article are irrelevant (publisher, editor, editorial board, authors: ). 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 ournals. 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:NJ)

Comment: A respectable academic publication and it seems easy enough to find http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2014/08/osa-s-newest-journal-optica.html a source which confirms this.  The worst case is that we would merge into another page such as The Optical Society per .  Please see 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:BEFORE)