Talk:Closed-loop box reuse

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Closed-Loop Box Reuse.pdf
 * Linear Box Economy.png

Commercialism
The article is about the reuse of boxes and other containers. Reusable packaging is an important topic and can involve many types of packaging. A few editors seem to be using the article to promote one product used to temporarily hold box flaps. There are now six graphics related to this one product, all of which are located at the top of the article. Other solutions are all pushed to the bottom. This is excessive and clearly promotional. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Pkgx (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Pkgx,
 * I hope you are doing well. Thank you for your support on the Closed-Loop Box Reuse Wikipedia page. I appreciate your edits to ensure the page follows Wikipedia's guidelines.
 * I am interested in including a couple of the box latch product photos, as this product does a good job illustrating the concept of Closed-Loop Box Reuse. If it is permissible, I am going to add 2 images of this product back onto the page, but I will intersperse them among other images. Let me know if this is acceptable. Thank you. WillNemoy (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is clear about articles not promoting particular products. Sales or  promotional material is strongly discouraged.
 * I would support you having two graphics related to your plastic clips. Perhaps one product flow diagram and one photo.  It is important that these do not openly indicate the brand or company. Pkgx (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Please review Spam, WP:NOTADVERT, and WP:PROMOTION.
 * As I have said, from my standpoint, you might have two graphics. You now have four, which is excessive and clearly with a commercial interest.  I have reduced it to two.  Pkgx (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)