Talk:Bulb Energy

Impossible!

Bulb say - "Each time someone joins Bulb they lower their carbon impact by 3,026 kg of CO2 a year. That's the same amount of CO2 as 2.5 cars emit in a year."

How can this be true? How can this be calculated? It's a bit like finding a piss in the Atlantic Ocean and trying to claim it as yours! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.94.142 (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional: all "favourable" statements are fully referenced to independent sources. Most of the content is purely factual, and the article also includes "unfavourable" statements, such as that about running at a loss, and that about other companies questioning its pricing policy. Actually I'm amazed that anyone would select a well-sourced article about the largest supplier of renewable energy in the UK as a target for any form of deletion, let alone speedy deletion: Bhunacat10 (talk), 12:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Press releases, interviews and self published statements are not "well-sourced", particularly: Bulb was ranked top in December 2018 among "the fastest growing businesses in the UK". As of March 2019 Bulb has over a million customers, representing a 3% domestic market share. Already the largest supplier of renewable energy in the UK, and the eighth largest supplier overall, the company aims to reach the size of the "Big Six" within a few years. is pretty heavy on the WP:WEIGHT. This is rife with WP:ARTSPAM. Praxidicae (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Did you knowMay I suggest that if you object to particular phrases within articles you can propose changes, or make edits yourself, without going for speedy deletion of the whole piece?: Bhunacat10 (talk), 12:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Praxidicae I am genuinely amazed by this. Disclosure: I have no connection with this firm, and have had no contact with anyone there. I simply found that there was no article for Bulb even though there were articles for many smaller competitors. As it looked as if the company was clearly notable I thought I'd create the article myself. I don't care whether the article attracts customers or repels them. I attempted to do no more than report what is in the sources I found. Now if you would like to point out which of the sources used are based on press releases (I have no nose for this), or otherwise unsuitable, I will modify the article. I hope we're not approaching a situation where no media coverage that says anything good about any company can be used as a source: Bhunacat10 (talk), 16:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Administration

Just announced the company has gone into administration. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/22/bulb-energy-which-supplies-17m-customers-collapses-into-administration?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other JohnCastle (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

A minor matter but I'm not sure whether there is a precedent on whether we should still list the company as "private" in the infobox now its business in its largest territory has been, albeit temporarily, nationalised. (Ofcom are acting as administrator on behalf of the British state who now control its operation—as the BBC article implies). Any thoughts?

Llew Mawr (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)