Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul II (octopus)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to

Paul the octopus. Any information about the secondary octopus that is relevant to the article on the primary octopus can be merged in. And there's a sentence I never thought I'd type. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Paul II (octopus)

Paul II (octopus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As if this wasn’t clear; firstly, to imply that someone would mistake the Pope for an octopus is extremely offensive; secondly, IF this is even the same octopus (as they die after months in captivity) this page is depending on speculation alone to justify itself. There was a or several octopi known as Paul. This may be one or some of them. The

Paul the octopus article is fine and this page can be summed up as “One of Paul's successors might predict the outcomes of Euro 2012 matches.” I added that and it was rightfully removed as speculation. Paul II OCTOPUS should be removed. Any further Paul the octopus sightings can be added to the main article as they live and die. No offense towards sea life intended, octopi are intelligent and fascinating creatures. This article looks like it has sources but all the stories that aren’t about the original Paul may not even be about the same animal due to poor research done by the news organizations. Compassion is in fashion (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep - I read a book once about a man who mistook his wife for a hat. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This particular octopus has done nothing notable - it hasn't done any "predictions" like its predecessor did, I see no reason why this octopus is any more notable than any of the others currently in captivity or in the wild. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is not based on number of predictions, but coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There is no question that this meets WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please note that the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Benjiboi. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I wonder if I would be justified in transposing the
    (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep or Merge to
    WP:GNG 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.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 11:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to Paul the Octopus. Silly as this is, it did get quite a bit of coverage in the more frivolous pages of reputable news sources (Daily Mail, Huffington Post, Daily Telegraph). No doubt it wouldn't have without the original Paul the Octopus so surely we should merge II into I? Soupy sautoy (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think
    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. Spacexplosion[talk] 16:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge and Redirect to Paul the Octopus - this is an unnecessary content fork. --Anthem 16:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Paul the Octopus. While this particular Octopus has done nothing notable himself, the fact he was caught and intended to be trained as Paul's successor is relevant information to Paul the Octopus. While there is no need to have a separate article, there is no need to fully delete the information either. - 194.60.106.38 (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge into Paul the Octopus. Unnecessary content fork, and no need for a redirect. Nageh (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited. If this octopus becomes notable for something other than being descended from a notable octopus, then in might warrant an article.--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable in the least. PKT(alk) 20:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_II_(octopus)&oldid=1138212011"