A reviewer, HighKing, placed an importance tag before the Review section, suggesting that the entire section be deleted, on the grounds that it was "promotional." I deleted this tag. The reasons he gave for including the tag on his own Talk page make no sense. He claimed that the entire section is promotional. HighKing is confusing promotion with self-promotion, which are two different things. If I linked to a website quoting a press release in which the Rare Beer Club praised its wares to the skies, that would be self-promotion. But in this section, I am linking to sites like Fortune, Popular Mechanics, and the Berghoff Beer blog, who are praising the club because they like it. They could be said to be "promoting" the club, in a manner of speaking, but it is ultimately their opinion, not the club's, and the article is simply reporting that fact.
To HighKing, I made the analogy of a Wikipedia article about a film containing a Reviews section. The Reviews section in that case would not be promoting the film, it would just be reporting what reviewers thought of it. This would be as relevant for a bad movie (like The Room) as a good one. If there were poor reviews of the Rare Beer Club, I would have included them, but I didn't find any. Frustratingly, HighKing did not even respond to my argument. He said that he was "surprised" that I had included the Reviews section at all. Yet the service the Rare Beer Club provides is a product, just like a film is a product, and people who are curious about the club would have a right to see those reviews on a Wikipedia article. In my opinion, the article would not be complete without such a section.
However, there was one reference to a review by The Chicago Tribune which on a second viewing I decided might be ambiguous, so I deleted it. Which shows that I'm not averse to correcting and improving the article, just to interpretations of the rules that make no sense to me, such as by reviewers like HighKing.
Dylanexpert (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply
