It's like an AfD, but anyone can remove the tag if they disagree with the non-notability.
It seems by its very nature to lack references. Additional issue: I question whether this stuff is reference-able.I don't think it makes sense to say that D&D is notable and should be included, but that things notable to D&D are non-notable to WP. If X is notable, then subsets of X are notable. But I acknowledge that D&D is a notable subject. I could not care less about the minutiae of D&D. If we did not use this criterion for notability, I think WP would lose a lot of information, which is notable to large sub-sets of wikipedians. (First off, what is a PROD tag?) I believe that if this article is notable within the D&D arena, it is notable for WP.VigilancePrime ( talk) 06:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC) I would like others' thoughts on this both locally (this article) and globally (Wiki-wide). I at the least attempt to be consistent in that respect. This article is a great microcosm of that problem: IF this is notable WITHIN the D&D arena, does that make it notable for Wikipedia, or is notability within a notable topic insufficient? I would tend to err on the side of including this and other articles. My point is to bring to light a severe inconsistency with Wikipedia in general. Using that logic, there is no way that this article (the one he was defending in his attacks on me personally) qualifies as notable. Now here's the point I was hoping someone would bring up: "within the sphere of D&D it's notable." I was (recently) personally attacked for adding a PROD tag to this article to evaluate it for non-notability, and the very person who attacked me and my edits used the opposite logic to delete other articles, stating in effect that notability within some sub-area was not sufficient for Wikipedia, but that a topic (article) must be notable on its own.And in-universe tags I feel are kinda stupid, so I would delete most if not all of them, and thus this one too. I don't have a problem with removing the notabiliity tag, as I don't have any idea what any of this stuff is, so I can't really judge whether, within the sphere of D&D it's notable. VigilancePrime ( talk) 05:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC).So on that topic, I agree with you that there is no need for an in-universe tag. Usually, the first thing I read after one of those tags is "The _ is a fictional character/place/etc." and it's ridiculous. I don't have a problem with in-universe versus out-universe tone.
While I am an inclusionist, I cannot think of how to justify something like this when more-notable, more-referenced, and higher-content pages are deleted. This topic doesn't even come close to the levels of notability of many articles that are being deleted daily.
As for the notability tag, I absolutely believe it should be thusly tagged.(Long ago, I had similar reactions to such tag placement.) REF tags are designed to attract attention of editors who can help source it. Firstly, the remaining tags absolutely are deserved as this article is barely referenced.Firstly, it would be better (good form) to take this to Talk before removing the tag, especially as it appears that it's been around awhile.Also ranking and review I think make it notable. It describes a module (a book) not a fictional story. Other : Collaboration: Dave Arneson, Drow (Dungeons & Dragons).Verify : add sources to novels planned for merge to List of Dragonlance novels.Update : Rewrite to be out-of-universe: Companions of the Hall, Dark Sun, Elf (Dungeons & Dragons).Stubs : Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, Swords & Spells, Variant Dungeons & Dragons games, More.