Deletion of Anarchist stamp

Comment: I'm just going to copy/paste my comment from the article talk page, as it, I believe, establishes a good case for deletion: "The generally accepted criterion for notability is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." () I don't think that standard has been met here. I would also point out that |Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being "a subject" is not sufficient to establish why we need an article on that subject. Similarly |Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:DIRECTORY)

Comment: Along with the two others above, I'm another long time philatelist who has never heard of this topic. It is certainly not recognised as a collecting interest by the American Topical Association whose main interests are http://www.americantopicalassn.org/studyunits.html here. The article appear to be a mix of some  mixed with a little  that combines some postage stamps that individually have anarchist connections under an umbrella title. Incidentally I know a collector who collects "umbrellas on stamps" but that does not justify an article for that interest. If we keep this one then we can easily create numerous stamps article based only on the content, but as a stand-alone article it is not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYN)

Comment: and have explained the definition of "anarchist stamp" using the sources available.  I have also narrowed the scope of the article to information relevant to that definition.  The information about anarchists as stamp collectors was obviously not relevant to the page and I have removed it.  At this point, it would be difficult to call the current form of the article |original research, as I've sourced everything appropriately.  I've deleted list-like information (it wasn't sourced anyway).  I am now advocating for a strong keep (that is, my recommendation has changed above,) with these new changes, because the article is no longer in a state of disrepair
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)