Deletion of Worlds of Ultima Online

Comment: as a perfectly acceptable 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CONTENTFORK)

Comment: remarkably scant "coverage" in the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Worlds_of_Ultima_Online&action=historysubmit&diff=473834000&oldid=473466262 sources you found. Zero information about reception or significance. Your sources barely mention the worlds by name in a sentence or two. The only information you actually added to the article was about the number of creatures, which is completely off topic. The |general notability guideline calls for significant coverage, which is "more than a trivial mention
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per the okemon test. (Just joking). Seriously, keep per . This is a clear spinoff and the Merge votes make it clear that it would work as a section of Ultima Online, but it is already quite long. This should have never been called for deletion given that the sources are clearly wp:v|verifiable, the  given at nomination is for "unsourced and contentious material", "original research", "undue weight" or "libel, nonsense, hoaxes, and vandalism". This is a waste of time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Portal (WP:P||WP:CONTENTFORK||WP:WONTWORK)

Comment: to Ultima Online per  and .  Deletion is unnecessary, as discussions of major plot elements can easily be fit into a topic's main article with appropriate trimming
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:NNC)