Deletion of List of places blurred out on Google Maps

Comment: first of all, this is not . It advances no claims based on any synthesis. I don't see 'censorship' mentioned anywhere on the page. This is a list
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: It's an interesting list, and I'd vote Keep per , but it fails the list guidelines and , 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:NOT)

Comment: Could be cleaned up to follow  better, but list has classic examples like Plum Island Animal Disease Center and many nuclear power plants. Give a few days at *least*. Look how old the article is... give it a change
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST)

Comment: 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 ''is'' .  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  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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOT)

Comment: The notion is sound. I don't agree with the  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: and '''merge''' with Google Maps and Google Earth. Any list is bound to run the probable risk of |OR, but the phenomenon itself with verifiable examples should be noted in those articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)