Deletion of Paul II (octopus)

Comment: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think  suggests that one person/animal would be less notable if their fame piggy-backed on another person's fame. Isn't this how articles like K-Fed start? It only matters that the reliable sources are giving adequate weight to the new subject. Also, there is content specific to Paul II in the article that wouldn't fit well merged into Paul the Octopus, such as where Paul II was captured
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: to Paul the Octopus. In the football world these octopii are almost as significant as the Pope (no disrespect intended) but clearly not from a religious angle, it's more about entertainment. There is no harm in having an article about Paul II (octopus) as long as it meets  which it does (the media coverage, including television coverage for this octopus is well over the top, but such is entertainment). None of the content overlaps with the Pope or can be confused with the Pope. If it did then there would be a problem. I can't imagine stacks of smoke coming out of the aquarium when an octopus dies. Far too much effort. And could you imagine the election of a new octopus. The effort required to get octopii to vote for a new successor. I think that the Vatican is safe from conflicting octopii
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I wonder if I would be justified in transposing the  policy to living animals
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)