Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalika Temple


 * 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. Whether or not it is a hoax, it clearly fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Kalika Temple

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I cannot verify the existence of this temple. I've found many temples with similar names throughout India (including at least 2 Maha Kali Mandirs), none of which are in Reasi. Google Earth and Maps reveal nothing; I looked up Reasi bus stand and there's no evidence of a temple nearby. The only information I can find is Wikipedia mirrors, and I also cannot find any images of this temple other than the one on this article. The closest I've found is a Bawe Wali Mata; some sources include information from this article (it seems to also be known as Kali Mata Mandir (note the word order and spelling), hence the possible confusion), which does seem to be real, but I don't think it's the temple this article is referring to, as it's not in Reasi (the article originally said it was in Udhampur, and I can't find any evidence of one there either). Therefore, I think this may be a hoax. If it is, it would be one of the longest-standing ones, having been here for more than 8 years. Adam9007 (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  22:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if it does exist, its notability cannot be demonstrated. Paul B (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  &#40; Talk &#41;  13:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Questionable Delete as a hoax. As mentioned above, none of Google (Search, Maps, etc) can confirm that this even exists. I am not tagging it with db-hoax because it is not blatant to me. Just because there's nothing on the Internet doesn't mean that it is a hoax. For example, some private companies, organizations, and other private places/areas don't have content on the Internet. I think that more research needs to be put into this first, but I too would question the truthfulness. hoax is staying put for now, but no speedy delete yet. Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Most prominent" temple, but no internet footprint? Seems highly unlikely to me, hence why I think this is probably a hoax. Adam9007 (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.