Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonas Paul Eyewear


 * 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Jonas Paul Eyewear

 * – ( View AfD View log )

promotional article for non-notable company. The references are almost all mere press releases or mentions (I cannot access the WSJ one) The "Inc.'s 21 coolest products of 2019" is a publicity gimmick, and isn't a reliable source for anything, let alone notability. The contents too is what would be expected of a press release, complete with cute origin story. Written by a declared paid editor, and sounds it. Additional evidence, as if any were needed why the natural tendency of paid editors is to write publicity. AfC is not a sufficient screen, if it passes contents like this.  DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The only source that might be useful is the WSJ which I also can’t see, but on its own that would not be enough for a keep. Mccapra (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: I have crawled through all the sources, and some are interviews. Others are decent articles about protective eyewear for children, esp. sunglasses and blue light blockers for kids. This is going to become a big issue for children with too much screen time and resulting behavioural disturbances. More to come on this issue. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing you've said above has any relationship to our criteria for establishing notability. Please read WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete typical product of paid editing, fails WP:NCORP. Let's look at the sources: lightweight interview with founders, mostly cute clips of the kid playing with toys with very litte info on the company, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH;  - dodgy blog that allows anyone to "become a contributor";  - brief mention of one of their products in "the x best holiday gifts" listing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH;  more promo interviews with the parents in local news;  affiliate marketing spam blog;  brief mention of product in top ten list;  company's own website. I have access to the WSJ article via ProQuest and it's more of the same: a 241 word blurb based mainly on quotes from the father. It does not even have a byline. In short there is nothing to indicate encyclopedic notability here, merely evidence that they have a good PR team. Spicy (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with above, none of the references meet the criteria. Also I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP.  HighKing++ 12:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - interesting video at today.com but does not meet notability and the sources are cobbled together trying to "pass" our evaluation. Edit pattern is strongly indicative of public relations firm editing. Graywalls (talk) 09:58, 2 October 2020 (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.