Deletion of Relationship of Eve Polastri and Villanelle

Comment: I come to this with an admitedly suspicious mind since this type of article, just like the MOS:PLOT|plot sections in articles about films, is usually loaded with |original work, and often guilty of some |intense forking. The contested article, though, is not guilty of either infraction. The |necessary references are there and, not surprisingly for anyone watching television, |verify that the subject is highly notable, without a whiff of the  aroma. The article is about a relationship that has, per sources, engaged at length, to the point of fascination, critics and the audience alike. However, here's where we stumble towards having a ''stand-alone'', ''independent'' article: The relationship ''is'' the series! The series is about that relationship and without the relationship there is no series. It's what all the references are actually, essentially saying. This is not the same at all with the  other pairings cited above by
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:FORK||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:OR)

Comment: This seems like a very detailed piece of , suffering from . The relationship is not the main topic of any source cited; it is a plot element that is not analyzed~in-depth by reliable sources. The article is actually interesting and well written (I don't think it is fair to compare it to a high school essay as the nom does), but due to the OR issues I'd suggest the author tries to publish it some academic journal (or less demanding popular media) first, Wikipedia is not the palce for original research. Some parts of this could be saved by being merged into articles about characters or the plot summary, but I don't see evidence that the relationship itself meets / and instead I have major concerns over it being on the wrong side of OR
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:NFICTION||WP:GNG)

Comment: as a redundant content fork to the main character articles, but still something of verifiable value here. Agree with Piotrus that this is near  and tries to build an odd article scope that isn't really consistent with our best practices. But a lot of this stuff is verifiable, if verging on an |original essay from the author. Some of this could help flesh out the character articles, or a character list
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:OR)