Talk:The Knowledge Academy

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Mrjackclayton (talk) 19:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC) Hi, this page is not promotional at all. It is a company which has featured in BBC, Sunday times and other reputable publications. References are in place. There is a similar company called QA Ltd and they have a valid page.

The company is likely notable based on the sources but it would require an entire rewrite to be non-promotional in character and tone. Listing certifications and classes is not what an encyclopedia is about. There seems to be enough information in the sources to talk about its creation, history and goals and that would be a good article. Jbh^Talk 19:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok Fair enough, I used QA Ltd as a basis for this article and so assumed listing courses was ok. Why are they able to do it? Seems inconsistent. I will remove the course listings and anything else which may appear promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjackclayton (talk • contribs) 19:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you please re-review and let me know if any aspects of this page are still appear promotional? Listing services is a key component of what the company does so people can learn about it more. The only place this is listed now is in the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjackclayton (talk • contribs) 20:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Looks like someone already got to it. The article looks much better. Per the QA article. Yes, Wikipedia is very inconsistent. Different people review articles or sometimes articles slip by without review. Everyone is a volunteer but there have been some recent changes to try to make new article reviews better. Also, what is considered acceptable changes over time and old, low traffic/low interest articles often are not updated to current standards. It is just the nature of Wikipedia. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 00:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Protection

I have fully protected this article and reverted it to the last stable version. People will need to get consensus here for changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 May 2017

Please change the following:

{{cite web|author=Andrew Penman

to

{{cite news|first=Andrew |last=Penman

as well as

{{cite web|last=Penman |first=Andrew

to

{{cite news|last=Penman |first=Andrew

(t) Josve05a (c) 11:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Special:Diff/778371638. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Minor suggestions

Hi, sorry about all the recent editing issues with this page (not me after the first upload, although I think my draft was used). I'm afraid I wasn't the only person at the company asked to work on the page, and I'd like to apologise on behalf of all of us for the recent problems. I have a couple of very minor changes I'd like to suggest but (of course) as I'm being paid to do this I do understand that I can't be the most objective.

I thought it might be worth mentioning at the end of the History section that the company had 190 employees by May 2015 and had run courses in over 150 countries (as per this article in Director Magazine).

The Expansion Plans section is quite short - perhaps it's worth mentioning that the company is aiming to expand further into IT services through app development? (Again as per the Director article).

I totally understand if you think my suggestions are promotional or don't come from a reputable enough source. Thanks for your time. Samuel Cribb (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Samuel Cribb: That article is an interview with the owners and as such can't be considered independent of the company. I don't think it's suitable to use as a source in the article. SmartSE (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks for your input. I will have a look for further sources using the repositories you mentioned on the deletion page. Thanks. Samuel Cribb (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)