Deletion of Jonas Paul Eyewear

Comment: typical product of paid editing, fails . Let's look at the sources: https://www.today.com/video/boy-s-rare-sight-condition-inspires-buy-sight-give-sight-eyewear-company-830284867942 lightweight interview with founders, mostly cute clips of the kid playing with toys with very litte info on the company, fails  and ; https://redtri.com/best-kids-glasses-online/ - dodgy blog that allows anyone to "become a contributor"; https://www.inc.com/anna-meyer/coolest-holiday-gift-ideas-2019-inc5000.html - brief mention of one of their products in "the x best holiday gifts" listing, fails ; https://wwmt.com/news/local/partially-blind-west-michigan-boy-helps-others-around-the-world-seehttps://grbj.com/news/parents-dive-head-first-into-retail-eyewear-startup/ more promo interviews with the parents in local news; https://themomedit.com/an-honest-review-of-jonas-paul-kids-eyewear-plus-a-reader-bonus/ affiliate marketing spam blog; https://www.romper.com/p/7-blue-light-blocking-glasses-for-kids-18146180 brief mention of product in top ten list; https://jonaspauleyewear.com/blogs/news/kids-eyewear-brand-launches-nonprescription-sunglasses 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP||WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:CORPDEPTH)