I maintain that it is. My mom and my wife cringe when I use it. Googling has yielded mixed results so I turn to the brightest and most beautiful people on the planet to resolve the issue once and for all.
On what basis do they claim it’s not standard?
Googling a bit, some folks seem to think that “one” is inherently singular and cannot be pluralized, which is idiotic. The word “individual” is similarly singular, but does that mean we cannot say “We are all individuals”? There are dozens of sample sentences here using “ones” as a plural synonymous with “individuals,” and there’s no legitimate reason to decry this construction.
Grammar pedants, I tell you what. They need to get a hobby.
The other objection that I hear is that it is redundant and should be shortened to just “these”.
Tremendous amounts of our language are redundant; this is a foolish objection IMO.
“These ones” has a slightly different emphasis: it emphasizes that you’re talking about a collection of INDIVIDUALS, whereas “these” emphasizes that you’re talking about a COLLECTION of individuals.
I suppose, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with a little redundancy.
Or you could be talking about “ones” as in one-dollar bills. “These ones are mine. Those ones are yours.” 
I voted “not proper” for this reason, but it’s not wrong or anything, just a little unnecessary redundancy.
Same here. “Not proper” and “worth making a fuss over” are different things.
Looking around a little, according to this Grammarphobia page, “these ones” is not considered odd or nonstandard in Great Britain, but it’s in a grammatical gray area for US speakers. “Like many questions of English usage, this one has a fuzzy answer. We can’t find any evidence that “these ones” is grammatically incorrect.”
I personally don’t think “these ones” is improper at all. I can agree to it perhaps being not the preferred usage in the US.
This is one of those usages that my mother disapproved of strongly, and she let me know at a very early age.
I can’t think of a single instance where clarity is lost by leaving out “ones”, even in the case of the dollar bills (where you can point and the other person can see them - unless one of you is blind and then I grant an exception).
There may be very occasional cases where including “ones” adds information. In general usage, it just doesn’t. And to my ear it sounds uneducated.
I only offer my opinion since someone asked, I would never attempt to correct you (except gently, by example).
Roddy
LHoD, to paraphrase** Unca Cecil**, we can talk about logic or we can talk about grammar, but not at the same time.
“These” is not strictly a pronoun: “these ducks” would be fine, for instance.
“Ones” is an acceptable plural of “one.”
However, “these ones” is just wrong.
It hurts my ears a bit but I wouldn’t point it out. Unless you asked, which you did. So I did.
I put it in the same camp as “where’s it at?” vs. “where is it?” You can argue all you want why the former is just as acceptable as the latter, or moreso, but I’ll still disagree (silently).
It does puzzle me a bit though, on a board such as this one where people pride themselves on being so well-read, how strongly people will argue for the acceptability of phrasings such as these when they are rarely, if ever, seen in print outside of the author using them to define a character’s personality trait.
Not accepting the dollar bill usage is silly. That would mean you don’t accept “these” being used to modify any noun. “These ones” (in the sense of “one-dollar bills”) vs “those ones” is not any different than “these apples” and “those apples.” Surely, you have no problem with that, right?
At any rate, if “these ones” is redundant and not permissible for that reason, why is “this one” okay?
Bwuh?
Google News Search. And that’s hundreds of written examples from just the last few weeks.
If I could ask here, what do you think of this:
There has been some changes.
Sure we can. Go pick up a book on linguistics.
If you’re talking about prescriptivist grammar, you’re still wrong: there are conventions (such as the use of colons and parentheses) that aid comprehension.
We can easily distinguish between conventions that genuinely aid comprehension, and arbitrary rules invented to achieve some unnecessary aim, such as conforming English to Latin grammar, or eliminating redundancy from the language.
I’m all about preserving useful conventions, but silly conventions such as prohibiting “these ones” should be mocked and ignored.
Yikes–I just realized that came out really snarky. Sorry. I do think there’s a useful distinction to be drawn, and I do think linguistics points us in the direction of that distinction, but I didn’t have to be so jerkish about it.
No, you were right to be snarky. Someone’s gotta fight the grammar nazis! Thank you.
+1
I’d accept that.
Imagine stacks of ones, fives, tens, and twenties, in a police department. “These ones all have the same serial number! They must be counterfeit. But those ones (points to the other table) look OK.” 
These are what some folks would call “distinctive of class,” which is a polite way of saying “It makes you sound like trailer trash.” That is, if there is a polite way to say that.