Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Vladimir Lenins assassin

This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Vladimir Lenin's assassin". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page.
 * If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale".
 * If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion".
 * If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution".

Talk page discussion
We should not have articles about "unknown people".--31dot 00:34, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Created by the same guy that created "Evil Kirk". -- sulfur 00:37, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

This is worse, since we did not even see this person.--31dot 00:37, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of the above. But was the person's species identified? I'm considering the possibility of this maybe being on one of the Unnamed... pages(?) Of course, it might not be suitable, however. Just a thought! --Defiant 00:42, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

I think it was only said that Lenin was assassinated and the assailant vanished(beamed up, but that was not known to those in the 1910's). I really don't see a need for an article which states "An unknown person killed Lenin". If we knew his species it would be a little different.--31dot 00:46, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted above, I agree. --Defiant 00:48, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Deletion rationale
We do not need an article for an unknown person with no information about them other than what they did. --31dot 00:54, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
I'd suggest this might be suitable for a speedy deletion, in accordance with article 5 of the deletion policy: Very short pages with little or no definition or context. --Defiant 01:09, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's that short- and it does at least attempt to have a definition.--31dot 01:14, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about a reference in the episode about this person but if we keep it it should be on Unnamed Humans (20th century). Tom 01:20, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

@31dot; I agree that it does at least make an effort to have definition and that's a good point, though I'd say it qualifies for having "little" definition. --Defiant 01:24, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. –Cleanse ( talk 03:22, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, delete, by all means. I just don't think we should bother waiting the 5-7 days for it to be passed through this form of deletion process, as it's eligible for immediate deletion and it's a dead-cert that the consensus will be to delete it. --Defiant 03:33, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - We don't even know if this was a Human, and it's pretty likely that it wasn't in fact. - 09:26, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Admin resolution
Deleted per consensus. --31dot 21:47, March 11, 2011 (UTC)