Talk:Rich Energy

Name change to Lightning Volt

Companies House has recorded this change of name. This leads me to ask two things: is CH a primary source, and should we keep the old name as that is the name it had when it was notorious? Britmax (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Lightning Volt Ltd is only used for legal reasons. They appear to keep using Rich Energy commercially. So I would keep the article as is.Tvx1 14:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Companies House is a primary source, because the information they hold is filed by the people or entity concerned. That said, primary sources are fine to use within certain parameters - see WP:PRIMARY for the details to save me essentially repeating them here. --kingboyk (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Issues with the lead (and article)

Apart from the total ambiguity concerning the company's name, the second paragraph states: "On 16 July 2019, Rich Energy claimed to have announced that they have renamed their company name to "Lightning Volt Ltd.""

this is not supported by the provided sources, who refer to documents retrieved from Companies House, not to any announcement by Rich Energy or Lightning Volt. The Rich Energy twitter has still been active (with revised logo). Haas F1 stated Rich Energy is not behind on payments and as such will remain on the car. Of course this might very well be a deal with Rich Energy Racing Ltd. Furthermore, even if Rich Energy Ltd. has been renamed to Lightning Volt Ltd. the drink could still be named Rich Energy. I propose to rewrite the sentence and the next as:

Information filed under Companies House suggest that, as of 16 July 2019, Rich Energy Ltd. has been renamed to Ligtning Volt Ltd. These documents also revealed that William Storey and Croatian colleague Zoran Terzic have been relieved of their function as directors. (sources from original can remain)

However, it's not clear to me if this article is supposed to be about Rich Energy the drink, Rich Energy the brand or Rich Energy the company (which now might be Lightning Volt... at least in the UK?). Language like "claims to manufacture the Rich Energy energy drink" just don't sound encyclopedic. Perhaps this article should be deleted or reduced to a stub until someone can actually figure out what is going on with this 'company'. Sorry for the verbal diarrhoea. 2A02:A210:A1C2:9380:A0E7:8EAF:EEC8:2D53 (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"Claims" to make the drink

I understand where this coming from, and think the article actually tells the story quite well, but it does perhaps give a slightly false impression that the drink is total "vapourware". Some units have certainly been manufactured, and some have been sold through Amazon; photos have appeared of purchases on social media. I'd not be surprised if there is a reliable source somewhere where an author goes into this (maybe even tried a can themselves) given the interest there was in the brand in the F1 media when the Haas deal collapsed. It might - shall we say - prove harder to reliably source from non-primary sources mass production, however. --kingboyk (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC) Maybe we should update "Area served : Worldwide" then. There's no evidence of the drink being available outside the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 40.0.117.29 (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The "vapourware" thing is exactly the impression I took from the article. If that's not the case, it probably needs a bit of a re-write. Dohzer (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)