Merging Red Hand of Doom and Reliability issue 

Given that there's not alot of information regarding RHoD I'm not sure I agree that it deserves it's own article. Given that I do think it belongs in Wikipedia, and suggest merging and redirecting it with a new article on other similarly-themed D&D; modules. This would have the advantage of 1) allying yourself with other editors with articles in this category, and 2) being able to gather all the secondary sources in one place to address notability concerns. I was thinking about this last night and had the idea that it could fit with 3rd edition modules with a generic setting. That would be a pretty good list of modules; take a look at List of Dungeons & Dragons adventures, and we should be able to gather a good number of secondary sources. I'd be happy to put in work on this. 

Also I'd like to get the issue of whether or not some of the secondary sources being used by D&D; editors that the deletionists view as "fansites" are indeed reliable sources. I'll be happy to put in the work or collaborate on this if you would gather up a list of the disputed sources you have been using. I think other people, such as user:webwarlock, might be interested also. We could submit the case to wp:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and then notify Jack and Gavin so they can see what's going on and make their own arguments. If it can't be resolved there then we can kick it up to informal mediation by the mediation cabal. I believe this action alone can go a long way toward settling many of these issues for a number of D&D; and other rpg editors. What do you think?