If half-frame is good for 11x14" prints (assuming modern lens + modern film), I really don't get why some people rag on half-frame. I've lost count of how many times I've heard that I can't expect good prints from my little half frames, or that I really should get at least a full frame camera.
Most likely some of that is coming from the same sort of people - myself included - who prefer printing from medium format or large format over 35mm.
Note that I use the word "prefer".
Part of that preference relates to how the rendering of images changes when using longer focal length "standard, moderate wide angle or moderate telephoto lenses, as the size of formats increase.
Some of the preference probably also relates to how concerns with dust and handling damage are magnified with smaller formats.
And finally, many of us have legacy experience with older film emulsions and 35mm full and half frame cameras that influences our opinions, despite our objective knowledge about more modern improvements.
Back when they were current, I think I put one or two rolls of Tri-X through my high school's Olympus Pen cameras, and it was a lot less satisfying than when I got to print the negatives from the (borrowed) full frame 35mm and medium format cameras I also had access to at the time. And when I got my new OM-1, and shortly thereafter my C330, the difference was even more striking.