Talk:Amla Ruia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Amla Ruia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PROD removal[edit]

PROD concern stated as "Fails to receive intellectually independent coverage across the two sources (BBC and NDTV-piece) that were available in my search and seemed semi-descent. The latter is solely written in terms of awarding her a non-notable award. The Better India source over this article ain't a RS. IIMLN awards are miles away from being notable. The Hindu leadership award is equally non-notable stuff. Ref-4 is the NDTV piece that I described above. Homepage ofher own trust isn't a RS. The Times Foundation is an associate of Ruia and that explains the puff piece that they have penned; well ain't RS. That's it."
This is disputable, especially the claim that The Times of India is an associate of the subject of the article. There is also other coverage besides that noted above. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]