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 delete. Courcelles 06:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zillur Uddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking Ghits and Gnews of substance. Unable to support claims in article. Appears to fail wp:bio reddogsix (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this article myself after a lot of research on zillur uddin. It would be easy for me to provide you with paper evidence off all the information I have added on this article, but unfortunately there is a very few references I could add in to this article as Mr Uddin doesnt have websites for his companies and has always kept a low profile for some reasons. However, he is now creating sites for his companies and I shall update this article with more references soon. I request that Wikipedia allows this article to remain live as this is a genuine article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolfizz (talk • contribs) 04:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can't keep articles simply because you consider them "genuine", a genuine Wikipedia article is supported by reliable third-party sources. Additionally, the article doesn't really list much of his work much worse unreferenced information. For the future, please visit Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners to learn how to cite references. Creating sites for his companies won't be sufficient either because this wouldn't establish notability, thousands of people can create websites. I respect his privacy but to be notable, you have to receive a reasonable amount of reliable third-party coverage because if not, you simply read like a promotional résumé. I also suggest visiting Wikipedia:Writing better articles or contact me at my talk page if you need additional help. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, references are not required to be available online. It's nice if they are available online, but references to print sources are worth including too, if they are independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Google News found nothing relevant and with a rather unique name, I would have expected something. Through a different search, I found this which provides some information but this website would not be sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant independent sources have been provided yet, and I couldn't find any myself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree, no notablity evident at all here. --phazakerley (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2012 (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.