Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foodmaster Square


 * 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. Icewedge (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Foodmaster Square


This would be just the sort of unusual article that one only finds at Wikipedia, if it were true. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be true at all. The four sources cited in the article comprise 3 bus timetables (sic!) and an article about some other subject. None of them mention any "Foodmaster Square" at all. In a pointed irony, the bus timetables actually contradict the article. There is no mention of any bus stop called "Foodmaster Square" on any of them, in flat contradiction to the article which says that that's one of the stops. The article tells us that bus route 88 terminates at this point, for example. The cited source, that is supposed to back it up, tells us that in reality the route terminates at one of two places: Lechmere Station or Davis Square Busway. I went looking for sources, and found nothing. There are no newspaper articles, books, or papers to be found documenting any such recognized place. And, as was pointed out in the first Proposed Deletion nomination (this article has in fact been put up for Proposed Deletion twice), the WWW's idea that there is such a place originates here, with this very article mirrored around many WWW sites since September 2007. The second Proposed Deletion nominator, six months after the first, came to the same conclusion. There are some fallacious "I'm a pseudonym. Trust me!" arguments on the talk page, but Wikipedia policy on Verifiability and No original research is clear. This article has no sources in support of any such thing, there are no sources to be found as far as I can determine, and the article is in direct contradiction with the supposed sources that it does cite. It seems that this vandal, whilst still a vandal, did have a valid point. This is at best, a completely undocumented idea that hasn't entered the corpus of human knowledge. But given that, as the first Proposed Deletion nomination said, it's a parking lot outside of a grocery store, and the contents of the article are demonstrably false, it seems more probable that this is a complete fabrication, being defended with bogus arguments and sometimes outright personal attacks on editors who question its validity (see the talk page). Uncle G (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've just spent a not-very-interesting half-hour scouring the web and poring over online maps of Somerville. Would you believe there's even a Boston squares website?—And yet even that doesn't have anything.  I can't source this article, so I'm forced to conclude it's disguised promotion.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised. The genuine squares &mdash; or, at least, some of them &mdash; are extensively documented.  There's a 6-page Transportation Research Board report on Davis Square, for example, that includes historical background, maps, and photographs.  The absence of any similar thing here only lends further weight to the conclusion that this purported square is a fabrication. Uncle G (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, sources don't show any notability.  Genius  101 Guestbook  23:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, fails WP:V, false references, probably disguised spam. JohnCD (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this article seems to be based upon someone's personal name for the area or a well-liked family term for the area--I live in Somerville and have never heard anyone call it this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.8.37 (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Of course I say this, because I proposed this deletion. I didn't realize it'd been proposed so many times before, under the same reasoning, but I guess there are reasons why it has.  I already explained myself on the talk page, but really, it doesn't pass muster under No_original_research (or even Verifiability, if you consider that there are no sources offered that actually corroborate this concept's existence). Massachusetts (talk) 03:58, 26 March 2009 (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.