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.
This topic is clearly of current interest to certain people following the New Orleans incident. The article is linked from nowhere— I came across it from a Redditsubmission which is an obvious exhortation to create a piece of original research. I suggest moving the list to a relevant blog or site such as GoogleWatch. Wikipedia is surely NOT a corporate watchdog. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri12:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep it - This is after all a 'Free' encylcopedia. This is simply a list of places on Google's Map service that have not fully appeared or completely edited out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.49.251.19 (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep first of all, this is not WP:OR. It advances no claims based on any synthesis. I don't see 'censorship' mentioned anywhere on the page. This is a list. - Francis Tyers·13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to Wikipedia:List_guideline, "Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying." There are no sources for defining what "blurred out" means. Further more, in general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The topic of this list is not notable, is not sourced, and is not linked to by another article. 68.13.147.24113:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To the above anon poster please keep this in mind. While Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That being said, this article is definitely OR. There are no verifiable sources for this information. Perhaps an article detailing why these places are blurred would provide context and provide notability. --CyrusAndiron13:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a list, it must adhere to this policy from WP:ATT. The attribution policy states that "articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors should therefore provide references." Also, from WP:LISTLists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. To say that you found thse places on your own and created the list constitutes OR. And finally, what asserts the notability of this list? --CyrusAndiron13:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me point out List of New Order Jedi characters. Is there a reliable source listing all of the New Order Jedi? As for notablity, yes, I can't prove it notable since I don't quite understand how would I prove that. How do you prove lack of notability that you state is evident? --83.131.103.1814:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From WP:NOTABILITY. Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." You have no articles or sources that point out these blurs or explaion the reasons for them. You do not assert in the article why this information is important. As you do not have sources and you cannot explain why this article is worthy of being noticed, you have not met the notability requirements. --CyrusAndiron14:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentList of inhabited islands of Croatia has exactly one link from main namespace: link from List of islands of Croatia. And it is a featured list. So I presume the number of links is not a problem since this article could be very nicely be linked from Google Maps article (I won't link it myself because of WP:POINT). As for importance, I have in numerous times tried to find a list of this kind on the web. That is the primary reason behind the creation of this article: I would like to check this article from time to time to see if some new blurs popped out. Now, for me, this article is quite notable... but, of course, I am aware that for you it might not be. We'll se what closing admin has to say... --83.131.103.1814:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete classic original research. The last time this came up, I mentioned that it's no different than an article called List of houses on Google Maps with lots of cars parked in the front yard and other assorted wonders of useless information people could theoretically drum up looking at Google Maps. The problem here is that it's basically original research. Wikipedians care... but the information they're generating might be quite misleading. --W.marsh13:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, as someone showed in the Digg thread, the russian image is... drumroll please... an empty field. It's just a photographical error in the Google Maps image. --W.marsh13:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm the creator of the list so I obviously think it is notable, etc. Now, let me comment on the nomination:
This list was not made to support a claim of censorship by Google, it was made to list places censored by Google. Just as List of minor Star Wars bounty hunters was not made to support claim that Star Wars fans have no life, but to list minor Star Wars bounty hunters.
Every link to google maps is reliably sourced by a link to the google maps. Now, I happen to be a student of both computer science and philosophy, so you will have to trust me on this one: links to blurs on google maps indeed provide links to blurs on google maps. And, blurs on google maps are reliable sources that confirm existance of blurs on google maps. Just trust me on that.
As for definition of "blur"... since when is problem with one image a reason to delete the whole list? :-)
New Orleans incident? Sorry, never heard of it. I have been collecting this links as they appeared on reddit for some time now. I decided to publish it in this moment by pure chance.
As for the original research... now, what exactly is original research here? The fact that there is no published work that lists this blurs? Is there an published work which lists minor Star Wars bounty hunters? --83.131.103.1814:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this entire article is based on Wikipedians looking at something and drawing conclusions, the more correct analogy would be list of shots in Star Wars that are blurry. That could all be "reliable sourced" to the minute/second where the shot occurs in the DVD or whatever, which are published works. --W.marsh14:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia" (WP:NOT). One problem is these aren't even 100% true items, they're just Wikipedian's observations, which can be wrong (i.e. the russian image was not actually "blurred out" but an equipment error more likely). Even if the random Wikipedian is probably right in his observation... it's a fact with no reliable statement of context, explanation or significance possible. To group such tidbits together, be they the number of cars a Wikipedian sees in a front yard or the existence of a supposed blur, seems like an indiscriminate, or at least problematic, collection of information. --W.marsh14:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let me try and address some of your points.
Your reasoning is incredibly circular. You cannot say it wasn't made to make a claim about censorship when you say it lists places censored by google. Regardless, this is not the reason for deletion.
The links themselves don't constitute a source, circular reasoning again.
The definition of blur is important because inclusion on a list MUST be backed up by reliable sources that say "this is a blur". Since there is none, how can you have a list?
Reddit discussions don't really make it for notability.
Yes, there are works that list minor Star Wars bounty hunters in the forms of the countless Star Wars novels and such. This list has no such source and is infact nothing but original research. Your very admission for the reason you created this article is evidence that this is nothing BUT original research. For more detailed information please read WP:OR. 68.13.147.24114:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original researchish synthesis stuff. It's little more than "HAY GUSY IS AW TIHS STUF ON GOGGLEMAPS ADN IT WAS BLURRRY!!1" -- Cyrius|✎14:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for that kind of mockery. Assume that the creators and editors of the article have good intentions, even if you think it fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri14:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it can be safely agreed that Google has no interest in blurring these locations beyond complying with whatever anti-spying regulations there are in place. As such, this list provides an important (and interesting) insight. Furthermore, the article should be renamed. The satellite images listed in this article are not all "blurred", but they are digitally manipulated in some way. The Plum Island example looks more like a median filter to me. Rufous14:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such a paragraph, by the admission of the people who wrote the article, could only say "These are links to things random Wikipedians think are blurs, or possibly equipment malfunctions, or maybe median filtered". Do we really want to put that in an article? --W.marsh16:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraphs that have been added since my initial comment are nothing at all like what you describe, and seem like just the sort of thing I had in mind. Bryan Derksen08:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A clear example of original research. Satellite images aren't perfect, how can we be 100% sure that one particular place is actually censored, or just an unintended glitch in the image? This potential for inaccuracy is exactly why we have policies against original research. Krimpet (talk/review) 15:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Making assumptions as to what the intentions of the article's contributors are is pretty pointless - but that doesn't excuse the fact that it isWP:OR. As mentioned above, there are no sources to indicate whether these are software/imaging glitches, intentional blurrings, or so on. I've seen Google Maps images that were blurred due to high clouds - should I plop those on to this list as well? Remember, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of loosely related topics, and "Hey, it's a blurry spot on the picture" is a pretty vague relationship as any. It may be "neat" or "interesting" but neither of those are valid inclusion criteria. Arkyan • (talk)15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it needs work, but it is informative, and it is not original research because it simply collects existing information. --Uriel16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is a wiki, but it's not your wiki. If someone wanted to do a list of blurred out areas on Google Maps they could have started their own wiki. --SeanO16:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This list is fascinating; it suggests business and political patterns that would be very hard to see without it. Peepeedia 17:27 PDT, 12 April 2007
Delete Fascinating, but the topic has apparently not been covered anywhere else, and therefore fails to meet notability criteria. Kla'quot17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and expand.Delete Before checking out all the areas, be aware that the Google Earth article notes that a record is kept of every IP address that calls up imagery of high security areas. There really are places which might be considered of national security importance which have the tops masked off and the surrounding area filled with a seeming impenetrable forest of trees which are not there in photos and other aerial shots of the places. This list is also very selective. If it were referenced to an article somewhere about the phenomenon it would be an ok article. This topic is also dealt with in Google Earth in the section "National security and privacy issues." That section and this article could also include [1] which shows how one country covers high security areas with fake impenetrable forests. Google in this case provides the undoctored image, so the article might better be more broadly cast as "Censorship of online aerial images." See also [2] , [3] , [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] , and [8].Edison18:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do, however propose deleting this article for all reasons stated above. I thought these things went under "discussions"?
Keep. A Google search for "Google maps blurred" returns nearly 1 million hits, a large portion of which are discussion of this phenomenon. Refeneces to some of this discussion could easily be added. I'd suggest adding a list of formerly "blurred" areas--the White House and Capitol were blurred but no longer are, while the VP's residence remains blurred. I'd suggest renaming the article "List of places on Google Maps with locally reduced resolution". I'm still confused about why a primary source document, Google maps themselves, do not count as a source. Craigbutz20:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia's guidlines for lists says that the list entries must be vetted against a source that can constitute what membership in the list entails. I've not seen a source which describes what a "blur" is. Is it a sat error, censorship, dust on the negative, etc? Also, a list of places with locally reduced resolution isn't going to help. How much is fairly reduced? How big is locally? What if the area simply is old low res imagery, not reduced by some accident, omission, or censorship? What about the fake forests, that's not really reduced resolution? Who decides all this? You? This is why the maps themselves are not sufficient in any way as a source. 68.13.147.24122:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be the very definition of Original Research, as admitted by the words of the article creator above. - fchd20:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename and expand. This article should be kept, but expanded upon to include places thought to be intentionally altered to prevent viewing on Google Earth. This should include but not be limited to "blurring," adding trees, or any other digital manipulation. I was actually looking for this information the other day (out of curiousity), and an expanded list would be both noteworty, citeable (with various discussions, and from Google itself), and NOR. tlm202121:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "thought to be intentionally altered" is not encyclopedic. What someone "thinks" is irrelevant. This article doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a place for "blurs"...for censorship...for satellite errors...who knows? The fact is, you can find many sources on the internet with speculation on what these and other things on sat imagery may or may not be...but I have seen NOTHING in the way of a source that speaks to the true reason of any observed abnormality. As it stands, a source that defines what a "blur" constitutes would be needed to vet the entries on this list. An entry on a list is not its own source. 68.13.147.24122:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lot of arguments made on this page fall under the "it is useful" category (some of the delete arguments are not very helpful either). This is not an argument for keeping an article. Finding inconsistencies on Google Maps is original research. As it stands now the article makes ridiculous claims like blurring being caused by water on the lens, but even if non sense like that were cleaned up we would still have a list of things people found on Google Earth this is not encyclopedic content. The subject of censorship on Google Maps is covered in the main article, if this is such a prevalent issue I would be not opposed to a fork and a new page called Censorship on Google Maps or some such. --Daniel J. Leivick22:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page has recieved a lot of attention and has been cleaned up, but the problem remains. Wikipedia editors should not be making image analysis, it is not always clear what is censored and what is not, case and point was the Ramstien airbase image, it served as the lead image on the page, yet I don't think it is actually censored, probably just over exposed. --Daniel J. Leivick23:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Wikisource. I don't see this as original research. Each claim is clearly cited to Google Maps, which I'm sure is used as a primary source for other articles. Most of the links on this page are also very clearly blurred intentionally. Lincoln Labs is pixelated [9]. The dutch ones are even-more-obviously distorted, (blurred based on a Voronoi tesselation of random points) [10]. —Ben FrantzDale22:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out earlier, according to Wikipedia:List_guideline, "Inclusion on the list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying." It doesn't matter what you feel is obvious, items for inclusion on this list must be based on a reliable source. Crypticgeek23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
File:Red cardinal bird.jpgMale Northern Cardinal That's a valid point, but I would argue that interpreting obvious facts about a picture really is the same as reporting what the source says. For example, I would consider the image and caption at right a valid citation for the claim that male northern cardinals are red, even though the caption does not mention the color. —Ben FrantzDale01:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your argument. However, let me reiterate that original research...where editors draw conclusions based on a primary source (source google maps...conclusion "this is blurred out") is not allowed on Wikipedia for a host of very very good reasons. And when you frame your argument like you did, the rule seems frivolous. However, original research is big trouble. What if I saw a bump on a celebrity's lip and concluded on my own that it was herpes. That's my conclusion, and I believe it to be obvious. So I go put that on his Wikipedia article. This is why OR is very bad. Things on Wikipedia must be verifiable by a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Again, this list could stay if a source for vetting these entries be found. But the very premise of "blurred out" makes this list in serious trouble. There is no standard for inclusion outside of Wikipedia editors deciding what is and isn't included. Wikipedia isn't information decided by random editors to be true, Wikipedia is a collection of verifiable information from reliable sources. 68.13.147.24108:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your red cardinal example highlights a basic problem with Wikipedia's policy of citing sources... When do you stop? When is something so obvious and unambigous that it does not need a source? In the case of this article, I believe the term "blurred" is too ambiguous because it does not ONLY mean blurred. "Blurred" should/could also include areas covered by clouds, obstructed by reflections or photographed in low resolutions. The areas in this article are probably better described as "intentionally digitally manipulated" or, as we really seem to be talking about, "censored." However such terms would certainly make this an article that required expertise and original research. -- Ektar16:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews has the same standards of citing sources as Wikipedia, so I don't think it would fly there either. Especially, now that the the name of the article has been changed to "Satellite images censored by Google Maps" it is much clearer why sourcing straight to the maps does not meet Wiki policies of citing sources. There is a discernible difference between showing that image of a cardinal and claiming it is red, and showing a list of images and claiming they are ALL censored. - Ektar18:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP.This information is far from original research, and it provides a valuable database of infractions by Google to prevent the public from viewing a non-copyrightable property...planet earth. KEEP, Wikipedia should not police a list of this nature — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007 74.192.231.115 (talk • contribs)
But that's an original conclusion... a lot of them just seem to be equipment malfunction. Actually that shows a problem with lists like this that can have no explanation and require people to draw their own conclusions... lots of people are going to be the wrong conclusions altogether. --W.marsh02:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is exactly the sort of thing Wikipedia should police. If the author feels strongly the author may get his own web page to advance or promulgate this information. There he or she would have perfect freedom to push this notion, ignorant of Google as it may be. Here it just seeks to stick itself onto the credibility of Wikipedia and move from private obsession to generally accepted fact. Its a cheap shot and should be dealt with as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vanderleun (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep. This is a free encyclopedia and the addition of a list of places doesn't seem out of order to me, I find this article quite interesting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by iDemonix (talk • contribs) 00:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This belongs on a blog, not in an encyclopedia. I think someone should add this to an external page, and we can link to it from the google entry. Are we supposed to make one of these pages for every individual satellite map website? Or just for The Great Google's? Also, I worry that this page exists solely to try making people draw conclusions. Something like "Google censors." But how do we know Google censored the data, and the provider of the satellite data did not? I can keep on listing problems with this, but to me this is obviously not encyclopedic and adds to the glut of unnecessary Google sites. Rm99900:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep not terribly useful, but it is somewhat important. Seems a bit like listcruft. However, even if it is OR it is verifiable, so it could be included if it's decided that it's an appropriate topic. People seem to be confusing OR with V. M1ss1ontomars2k4(T | C | @)00:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not OR, for it is a compilation of material found on other secondary sources. Encyclopedic, for it is of importance in understanding a widely used resource, and as an indication of the extent of censorship. N, through both the secondary sources and the liked maps. Google maps has been used as a source of WP for many things. But if the article is rejected as bing an undifferentiated list, the same material could be used as the basis for an article under a more closely appropriate title. DGG00:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say it's not original research, then you say it's useful because people can conclude that the raw images represent "an indication of the extent of censorship". That's drawing original conclusions from a primary source... --W.marsh02:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is useful information, but redirect to a more general (less exclusively Google) list of places obscured by mapping services, with generalized latitude/longitude mapping links. Article maintainers can develop a useful neutral set of criteria for determining when a region has been specifically obscured. --Fjarlq00:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no thesis being presented about Google censorship, it is a simple list of places that are blurred out. It could be quite useful for some people and is certanly more relevant than some of those esoteric Star Wars lists that a few people mentioned.--208.97.117.15401:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a number of views I see above, holding that this list is appropriate to be deleted because it is not important, constantly changing (hence wrong from time to time), not official or sourced, original research .etc. I believe these are not good reasons. Please compare it with an article of a similar kind: List of notable websites blocked in the People's Republic of China. The "list of blocked websites" exists, despite it is constantly changing (Chinese government updates its list of blocked websites constantly, in the dark) and not official (The Chinese government never officially admit that it blocked any of those websites). Both articles are about a vast entity hiding information from the public. Given they are so similar in properties, what is the reason of keeping one and deleting another? --Computor01:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of votes on both sides that use inappropriate arguments like: (un)interesting, useless/useful. But the fact remains that this page is original research and unsourced as admitted by several keep voters and that is a reason to delete a page. --Daniel J. Leivick02:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original Research? I believe this article is an effort to give facts, and nothing more - that is what Wikipedia aims to do isn't it? It is attributed by direct links to the sections in question on Google Map. Everyone can click on the links to see these facts.--Computor05:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list should include exact coordinates for each site, and links to information on the security risk posed by photos of the sites. And it shouldn't be exclusive to Google. 68.101.205.4102:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Plum Island has CLEARLY been blurred. Compare the buildings to the water surronding the island. I have been to the island personally, and I can assure you that the tops of the buildings look nothing like what is being represented. This is original research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Villaged (talk • contribs) 02:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There are no reported instances of Voronoi tessellation, pixelation or blurring of complex, clear-edged shapes appearing as an uncontrolled phenomenon in any imagery generated by devices of human construction. 88.112.27.9703:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Edit it and improve it, y'all. 03:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Picofluidicist
Keep. Hmm, neat. bd2412T 03:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
So, you like it... do I really have to tell you this isn't a vote? Well... it will probably be closed exactly as a vote... but I can at least pretend... --W.marsh04:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:NOT, original research, listspam, also note that this article was linked to on Digg, and is, at 04:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)~, in the top 10, so get ready for a lot of input from new/anonymous users Lord_Eru_(Cont)04:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be worthy reference information, not an original synthesis nor listcruft. The text is not directly accusatory of Google but the citation makes clear that some Google censorship has been confirmed. 2 things:
The text should make clear that the identified "blurs" may be either censorship or imaging malfunctions, and in most cases censorship cannot be definitively confirmed.
Keep. This information should be made available to everyone and it would make sense to do so by putting it in an encycopledia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.165.164 (talk) 06:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep - I added the India and BBC references last night and slept on the AfD until today. It struck me that as a list the actual Google references are primary sources; this is fine in principle as long as we have secondary reliable sources that refer to "blurring" and "government" and/or Google control of this. We do with the India stuff so the article is 1/2 way there. If we couldn't find any references then it would be a clear delete BUT as we have evidence of Google manipulating the images it is a weak keep. Ttiotsw06:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting article, but still not where we need to be. There needs to be some sort of source that tells us what is or isn't "blurred". There probably would also need to be a name change. This list seems more like "places with abnormalities on google maps" than anything else. There are places with blackness, places that are blurry, places that are lower resolution, ad infinitum. Again, this article badly needs a source for standard for inclusion. 68.13.147.24108:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Compiling a list of things does not constitute original research. If it were, every list of everything that isn't copied word-for-word from another source would be original research. The evidence of blurring is quite clear, it does meet the definition of blurring. To say that is not the case would be like claiming that tricornes and bicornes don't belong on the List of hats and headgear because they have corners. They do meet the definition of a hat, there's no reason not to include them on the list, there's no reason to delete the list just because it wasn't copied directly from somewhere else, and the same applies here. It's important to note that practically all lists and categories on wikipedia have been created by people going out and finding things that they think belong on the list, and deleting things that don't belong on the list, not stealing the list from another source. There is, and should be, no synthesis of the information, and only that would make this original research. Calling this original research would set a very bad precedent for Wikipedia. -NorsemanII06:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's the fact that the only source is some Wikipedian's interpretation of an image they found on Google Maps that makes people say this is OR. See the early examples about lists of blurry images in the Star Wars trilogy or list of houses with lots of cars in the front yards that would be just as "verifiable" as this list. It's a bad precedent to say that kind of stuff isn't okay? --W.marsh12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While visual analysis of this kind is unusual, I wouldn't go so far as to call it OR. After reading the OR policy, I don't think the policy was designed to deal with this type of article. —Tokek14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article presents information from Google Maps. Google maps is notable and this article contains no original research. Nothing in the article is synthesized (no original theories, method of solution, original ideas, new terms, etc. are present). Plenty of "list" articles exist as a precedent. —Tokek12:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being new to these types of discussions on Wikipedia, it was very interesting to read these comments, reference all the different content-rule pages and understand better how Wikipedia content is decided. After all this, I'm pretty convinced this list has value to a subset of Wikipedian users but is not Wikipedia material. Plu5even13:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Google Maps article has included mention of the blurred areas since January 2006. Having a list of such areas within Wikipedia seems natural. If there are doubts about verification of items in the list, that should be addressed by editors on the talk page of the list. I find the reasoning provided in the nomination for deletion of this list to be contorted and a poor basis for a page deletion discussion. --JWSchmidt14:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The main argument of the deletion proposal, that this list be a "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position", has not been sufficiently established. I do not at all see this article as advancing a position, but rather as a list of places that various entities consider important, and that therefore probably are important. Deleting the list does not improve the encyclopedia or help our readers. AxelBoldt15:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason this list is seen as being more important than any list of what Wikipedians think images on Google maps show, say, List of houses with roof damage or List of houses with more than 10 trees in their yards is that people (as this afd shows) often assume there's some kind of `conspiracy being suggested by this list. Even you draw the original conclusion that these are places considered important... some are not, they're just equipment errors. And yet this list is being kept instead of laughed at, even though there's no difference between it and the silly examples I suggest, people just like this list, or think it suggests some lovely conspiracy theory. Keeping such stuff does not seem like a good idea... --W.marsh14:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This afd has neither implicitly nor explicitly referred to any sort of "conspiracy" before you just now used the word twice, and I don't know where you got it from. Blurring a picture is hard to keep secret, so it cannot be called a conspiracy. AxelBoldt16:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not here to play semantic games... people have said stuff like "It certainly has piqued my interest as to who's behind the directive!" it's clear what a lot of people think this list is about. And again, you yourself are still drawing the original conclusion that all of these locations are considered important by the various entities. --W.marsh17:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, and under the new title, Satellite images censored by Google Maps, it doesn't just imply original research, it is original research. Wikipedians looking at an image, saying it's blurred, and using that to claim that the image was "censored by Google Maps". That is drawing an original conclusion from a published work to advance a position. --W.marsh14:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the title of an article is being changed during the article's deletion discussion, that surely cannot be construed as an argument in favor of the article's deletion. AxelBoldt16:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Wikipedia:Notability_(companies_and_corporations) states that "a "List of Wal-Marts in China" would be informative". I find that this list is "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". I've seen this page blogged about in addition to having friends email me the link. If a collective interest in a page that is properly not spam or other vandalism is clearly notable. J.reed15:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an interesting list, and I'd vote Keep per WP:ILIKEIT, but it fails the list guidelines and WP:NOT, so it's not suitable for Wikipedia. Furthermore, the definition of "blurred" is open to different interpretations, which means we will never be able to make a good list. Jayden5415:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Unfortunately, GoogleMaps is frequently used a reference source. It is necessary for the encyclopedia to keep a list of areas where this reference source in inaccurate. Over time, I expect strong linking from other articles that point to this article as partial validation for a lack of source pictures. This is absolutely in line with Wikipedias goals. --Charles Merriam17:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The notion is sound. I don't agree with the WP:OR claim, because Google Maps is a fixed source. How is saying that "at this location in Google Maps, there is blurry imagery" different from saying that "on this page of Das Kapital, there is mention of the proletariat"? Furthermore: The article could be re-done based only on material documented elsewhere -- like Google Earth Community, Virtual Globetrotting (which has a "satellite problem" category), and other existing GMaps/GEarth placemark collections that include notations or categories. So even if I were to concede to the OR claim, which I don't, it still would be a valid article topic. - Keith D. Tyler¶ (AMA) 17:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I see it as different because one can open Das Kapital and unambiguously see if the word "proletariat" is mentioned on a particular page. If, however, you say the ideals of the proletariat are mentioned but there is no direct mention of the proletariat, you would need a source or attribution. In this case, there is ambiguity in the term "blurred." Why not also list places that are blurred because of low-res photography? This list wants to be a list of intentionally blurred places and that kind of list would require original research. - Ektar20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete Absolutely ludicrous to have a page dedicated to blurry images on a piece of software. Firstly what constitutes a blurry image and secondly this could open the floodgates to other frivolous rubbish like flaws in some obscure piece of Microsoft software as an example.--Lucy-marie17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong KeepOne has to wonder why the majority of sites deliberately edited are located in two countries. Whereas countries such as China and North Korea there aren’t any (at least none documented yet). It certainly has piqued my interest as to who's behind the directive!--HJKeats18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems many people want to make the argument that one can simply go and see the "source" and therefore there is no need for attribution. The flaw in that argument is that although you may be able to "see for yourself " there is no unambiguous definition of blurred. Obviously, this is not JUST a list of "blurred" places because it would need to include all the other places that are blurred because of low-res photography, reflections, clouds, etc. It seem this list wants to be a list of "intentionally blurred" places, and that unfortunately requires original research. I love the idea of this list, but I just do not see how it fits within the restraints of wikipedia policy. - Ektar20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. since the author quoted the source (reddit) and the source lists a link to the maps image, its seems this would be vetted. wikipedia is just peeved that its not "credible" aka a college didnt vet it. all knowledge doesnt come from colleges or the military, nor corporations. sometimes normal stupid people can add to the sum of human knowledge without a phd.-JP
keep the list is notable - it's one of the 100 most viewed pages; it's verifiable - just go look at Google Maps (which is certainly a reliable source for information on Google maps). If there are errors on the page that is not a reason for deletion. It is no more original research than the popular culture articles whose primary source is the cultural object itself.Filceolaire00:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable or not notable, this list is clearly original research. Get it published somewhere else and then maybe someone can write a Wikipedia article about it 68.175.108.11003:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep OR or not, a list such as this is both interesting, worthwhile and likely to improve in accuracy with time as dubious entries are subjected to scrutiny by others. I've looked a several of the entries and I've yet to find any which are not clear examples of artifical manipulation. Verification of the content of the list can be achieved by simple consensus of opinion, this article deserves to stay. 82.40.80.5317:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate delete - Even though I, personally, enjoy finding things such as this list, it, by no means belongs in the Wikipedia project for many of the reasons listed above. -Martinman21:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator comments that the list is an "original synthesis of material." Synthesis presumes analysis. A straightforward listing of intentionally blurred areas is just that - a list. No thesis is proven or proposed. Compiling lists of facts is not research.Ezratrumpet00:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting article. As to the point about it being original research - At work we have a saying "Follow the spec or change it" - perhaps the Wikipedia policy on original research needs to be changed. After an article is on Wikipedia more people research on the topic and it is no longer "original research". Nwk05:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (but merge into google maps). Covered by news, verifiable, notable, etc. If there is 'pro censorship' bias, it should be corrected according to NPOV. Lakinekaki15:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment To the multitudes of people who say "keep - i like it!", "keep - it is not OR!" with no explanation, "keep" with no comment or anything along those lines, please answer me this: Now that the article has a more appropriate and less ambiguous title ("Satellite images censored by Google Maps") shouldn't we have a reputable source and not just any wikipedian determining whether or not these images are actually censored? Also, there are just too many places where the censorship may not be obvious. For instance, I can practically ASSURE you this image is censored, but the censor is just not obvious. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE this article. I think it is extremely interesting, notable and encyclopedic BUT unfortunately I just don't see how it conform to Wikipedia policies of citing sources. -Ektar17:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article is going to be hard pressed for proper sourcing... I think this is a very, very rare instance we might have to use WP:IAR. And yes I'm already sorry that I brought it up -- but in this specific case -- sources are created by the entity itself. Google Maps/Earth are themselves creating the material and thusly the 'sources' of the information (aka the maps). I know this rule should be used very, very sparingly -- but in this case I don't see how we can find 'outside' sources -- Google Maps is essentially a database and the content of that database is where we get this info. MrMacMan Talk 17:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't see how this is is any way encyclopaedic content. Stuff like this belongs on a personal website or a blog - not Wikipedia. - fchd18:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A simple example of an outside source, which would satisfy Wikipedia citing policies, would be a New York Times article about how Google censors their maps. Such an article would, most likely, have a list of examples and those examples would be fit for inclusion in such a list. - Ektar18:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information in that article is interesting but unfortunately the problem still exists that the Daily Telegraph does not accuse Google of censoring their maps. If the Daily Telegraph isn't claiming censorship, how can we claim censorship and use that article as a reference? There are numerous blogs claiming censorship but they are not considered reputable sources. - Ektar18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you brings up a good point: Like any blogger, I could speculate for hours about what is censored, but that wouldn't be a solid claim of censorship. It's the reason why a reputable news source requires good research and not just a simple claim of "Well, it LOOKS like it's censored" as proof that an image is censored. - Ektar18:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's relatively clear that google's image of the white house is 'modified'. I believe we can agree that the white house image was changed and that the roof of the white house is not a bunch of rectangular colors. See here for the history behind it. The thing is that other groups have satellite images that haven't been censored... by using them as references we can show the differences and signs of censoring. MrMacMan Talk 20:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing images and draw conclusions is complete original research, Wikipedia editor should not be in the business of image analysis. That is why this page should be deleted. --Daniel J. Leivick20:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this seems appropriate material for Wikipedia; however, the OR nature of the current page means it shouldn't be kept. The page needs to have multiple nontrivial independent sources - Google Maps changes over time (new satellite data, etc.) and is a primary source. Attention, page creator: I really like this compilation of information and I really want you to host it somewhere else. - Chardish06:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's very interesting information, to be sure. However, not only is this far from comprehensive, this is entirely original research. This ought be rehosted on a personal web page.75.73.153.1813:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Content problems is never a strong argument for deletion. The topic is sound; the method of accumulating the content is questionable, but that can be repaired. If an article with the same or similar name can be created without OR, then the article should be kept, and fixed. It can, so it should. - Keith D. Tyler¶ (AMA) 16:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 7 of the 12 criteria for speedy delete (1-4, 10, 11, and 12) deal almost exclusively with content problems. And that's ONLY for speedy deletes. I agree the topic is sound, but the method of generating content is flawed and that is an article killer. Once an approved method of citing sources is used (e.g. when a reputable news source actually accuses Google of censorship) this article should be created and maintained with specific instances from those sources. But, until an initial source is found, we have no source of reputable proof of censorship. - Ektar18:49, 17 April 2007 (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.
