Deletion of Glasses Direct

Comment: If  had been checked the news section on Google turns up 5 years worth of RSes, including interviews. From the Independent.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/glasses-direct-chief-touches-optical-nerve-as-high-street-closes-ranks-424830.html to Skynews http://news.sky.com/story/751500/specs-boss-had-vision-to-take-on-big-boys and even coverage of its award as a startup.http://www.startups.co.uk/glasses-direct-takes-startups-co-uk-top-prize.html It meets GNG because of these sources. While they may not be cited right now, they can easily be included
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: Weak delete'' - do you mean the ''subject'' appears to be |notable? If so, I have to disagree. There are a few news articles about the company's fights with other companies, but the rest seems to be sourced from the company's website and at least one blog that doesn't even mention the subject. Having done a search of my own, I couldn't find much by way of |significant coverage in multiple |reliable sources. The sources attached to the article were horrible and some links weren't even the articles they claimed to be. I've removed a couple of deadlinks and a few that went nowhere or to articles that had ''nothing'' to do with the subject. I'd like to think they were mistakes rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead, but they are not worth keeping there either way. Without more in depth coverage, I can't see how the subject passes  or . More than willing to be convinced, so please post anything you can find
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:CORPDEPTH)