Talk:Brazilian packaging market

Datamark Ltda
This article is overly reliant on a single source (Datamark Ltda, São Paulo). The editor who created this article has also created an article for Datamark (which was rejected for being too much like an advertising). These are not unrelated facts. Also, there are no other “Country Packaging Market” articles in enwiki and this article does not seem to have an exact ptwiki equivalent. It all smells a bit like advertising and original research to me.

- Thank you for the feedback! I'll try to address all your concerns. This is not meant to be advertisement. I am researching the topic for a college project and noticed that there was no free available information on this [edit: which is as easy to find as a wiki article] (as you correctly said, there is no other "Country Packaging Market" article thus far. The article is not overly reliant on a single source, as it is just one abstract which contains their data. As I found the data freely available on the Internet I added it, but had to make the reference in order not to falsely claim intellectual property to be mine. I was trying to create the article for the firm because during the study I found out that they created two innovative products (at least innovative for Brazil and South America), which is worth mentioning, also given the fact that there are articles on comparable firms that should not even be on Wikipedia due to their lack of reliable sources (check e.g. Euromonitor). The first drafts were accused of being advertisement, because it is difficult to find the balance between pointing out the firm's importance (why they are worth mentioning [requirement for an article]; which they are) and not sounding like trying to advertise something. To my mind, it is no original research since the claims are based on diverse references to either web or written sources. No worries, Portuguese version will follow soon. Keep giving feedback so we can improve my article. Thanks.

Dots and commas reversed
Please don't, in English. The bottom table still needs switching. Tony  (talk)  13:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)