Portfolio school: There was talk about how this article should be merged but in the end no action was performed so I am opening up discussion again for further review.  I personally feel this article doesn't have enough proper references to support WP:GNG .  Feels a bit promotional too.  Also keep in mind WP:NOTDICTIONARY Imcdc Contact 12:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions .  Imcdc Contact 12:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions .  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 13:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions .  Joyous!  Noise!  15:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Response Once again, this is not promotional.  This is a category of schools.  Any amount of research - any amount - will show you that this is a legitimate category of schools in existence, like a finishing school or a trade school.  Should it be pruned?  Maybe - but I would love to hear an actual argument on how this warrants deleting this article instead of, say, editing out the parts you object to.  Do you deny the existence of portfolio schools?  LocusXovier ( talk ) 16:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - of the four sources in the article, the first is a blog and so not reliable.  I do not have access to ‘’Breaking into advertising and staying there’’ but it is sourcing a quote from someone from The One Club which offers an ‘online portfolio program’ and launched the One School (a ‘portfolio school’) in 2020.  The Working not Working magazine article is a promotional piece for the One Club / One School.  The Adweek article is paywalled, but what is visible is written like a blog and Adweek’s mission is to promote ‘brand marketing’ content, so it is difficult to see that this could be a reliable source for a legitimate type of educational institution.  In summary I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of The One Club, and so I believe that this subject does not pass WP:GNG .  SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete for PROMO.  NO sourcing found.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : My main concern is that repeated attempts to actually find good sources have failed.  I'm not sure the AdWeek "article" is particularly reliable, but even if it is, the volume of reliabe and independent coverage just doesn't cut it for WP:GNG .  Genuine attempts to find good sources by multiple editors have failed, which is by itself enough for deletion under WP:DEL-REASON .  Standalone notability (as required by DEL-REASON 8), probably a higher sourcing threshold DEL-REASON 7, is certainly not supported by the sources currently available.  Since it has been proposed before: I'm not sure what a merge to Advertising industry would look like, and a redirect without merging seems unhelpful too.  Actualcpscm ( talk ) 15:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: delete