Talk:Ambit Energy/Archives/2019

Criticism
I removed content in the Criticism section and was reverted by Grayfell. The reason I removed the content is because it gives WP:UNDUE criticism towards the subject. The section is the longest section on the page and I was attempting to condense it. The claim I removed is criticism from a non-notable representative from a non-notable consumer organization. My question is, what makes this significant to include on the page? Meatsgains (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this is within DUE, since it's two sentences supported by reliable sources independent of Biedrzycki and ROSE. She isn't the most significant critic, and I tried to keep it as brief as possible, but a section should be as long as it needs to be to get the point across. It's clunky, but it does include some relevant points: The content helps establish that the criticisms against the company's activity in New York also rose to a significant level elsewhere, and it also establishes that this is an issue with other MLM utility companies in Texas besides Ambit. Both of those seem to me like important context to me, which is, if I remember right, why I added them. Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Coverage in two local media outlets is not significant enough for inclusion. You would even agree that Biedrzycki isn't quite notable, so is her criticism important? Meatsgains (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * If this were just a local issue, I would agree. If you still feel this is undue, go ahead and revert, but please consider that while the sources frame it from a local perspective, this is a company-wide issue. I interpret Biedrzycki's comments as being part of the same issues discussed in the preceding paragraphs, which helps to justify using light weight sources to provide relevant context. Grayfell (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The heading 'Criticism of Consumer Advocates' seems very specific. This discussion also includes actual litigation which was initiated against the company and actual decisions that were made. Other MLM company articles include individual headings for 'legal cases', 'court-cases', 'legal proceedings' and 'litigation'. Perhaps the criticism should be put in another section to the 'litigation'. Please note that it is hard to find any specific model for how articles refer to this. Note that I've questioned this inclusion of instances of legal proceedings as a type of 'criticism' (it may be critical, but it is not only this) but here the title is very specific to what type of criticism it is. Some include litigation as an addition to a 'controversy' heading. Most articles, however, including individual headings for the legal proceedings. Request for advice on this subject. –Zachar (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)