Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better Halves
The question is simple: can sufficient real-world notability backed up by reliable sources be asserted for the topic? Answer: no, based on all available evidence. Hence: no article per  as explained at . There is no argument made above in favour of retention that responds directly to this problem. CKatz makes the claim that ''article ... improvement ... can and will be accomplished through the addition of information sourced from commentaries and third-party reviews,'' but there is simply no evidence whatsoever that this individual episode aspires to the kind of substantial real-world impact that we use to determine whether episodes should stand on their own or not. As for the other views, they are largely an assemblage of |ATAs
— User:Eusebeus, 18:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:FICT||WP:ATA (Wikipedia:Notability)