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 merge to Cinderella_stamps#Political_and_propaganda_stamps. This was a difficult discussion to close as the article changed during the discussion, and opinions developed and shifted. I have taken note that as the article and discussion has developed there has built up a consensus to keep some of the material in some form. There have been suggestions that the material on designs in the form of postage stamps should be merged into Cinderella stamps#Political and propaganda stamps, and suggestions that material on genuine postage stamps which use images of anarchists should be kept as part of topical stamp collecting, perhaps renaming the existing article to Anarchism on stamps in line with Space exploration on stamps. I have also borne in mind the views that the sources for the topical stamp collecting are not very secure, and the view that the article as it stands is an insecure intersection of anarchism and postage stamps. There is an overwhelming consensus that the article as it stands is problematic, with 11 people asking for something to be done to it (and most of those asking for deletion), and only three people suggesting it can be kept. There is, as has been pointed out, a bit too much WP:Synthesis in the article for it to be kept. There are no sources at all dealing as a unified group with the assorted material found here. The search term “Anarchist stamp” has no accepted meaning, so that can be deleted, and material related to Cinderella stamps merged to Cinderella stamps#Political and propaganda stamps, while material related to topical stamp collecting is merged to Topical stamp collecting. I will do the merges, and will make the entire deleted article available on request to anyone interested in ensuring the merges have been done appropriately. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist stamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet notability criteria. Mentioned in very few sources (the two listed on the page being an out of print book about stamps from the Spanish Civil War generally and another book containing "16 portraits of anarchist luminaries - Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Goldman, Berkman, Herbert Read, Durruti, Bakunin, Louise Michel, Zapata etc - together with an essay by Colin Ward on anarchism and stamps, and an afterword by Clifford Harper on his own personal connections to the postal service"). I couldn't find any reason why anarchist stamps are interesting in a way that is distinct from stamps generally, or even that an 'anarchist stamps' is considered a thing. AutomaticWriting 16:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Not only does this article seem substantiated by multiple, reliable sources, the topic also seems notable in that it documents how anarchism emerged in a notable way that I think would surprise most people. On doing a book search, it seems that this term can be used very differently than the way described by the current article, specifically, as the impact of an anarchist movement. However, there are a number of other sources:

• The Guardian article providing a great deal of in-depth coverage about anarchist stamps and their creators
• Describes the tradition behind anarchist stamps
• provides some examples of such stamps from Spanish anarchy
• this book, mentioned by nom, specifically providing in-depth coverage of anarchist stamps
• this book from the Spanish Civil War mentioned by nom, which unfortunately, cannot be searched.

The Guardian article is clearly the strongest here, and with everything else, I think this makes for a keep. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is really just the intersection of anarchism and stamp. Including the facts that some anarchists have collected stamps and that the US Post Office issued a stamp picturing famous author and philosopher Henry David Thoreau, whom someone thinks was an anarchist. The existence of any stamp that is itself anarchist in some way is not established. The Guardian article mentioned above is about an English artist who prints pictures of imaginary "post-revolutionary" stamps. They are not real stamps in any sense. Note also the the stamps from the Spanish Civil War seem to have been issued by the government, so hardly anarchist. Nor does the fact, mentioned by one source, that Russia (or the USSR) issued a stamp honoring Leo Tolstoy make that stamp anarchist. BigJim707 (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they are "real stamps" or not shouldn't be an issue here. They are still discussed in-depth using the subject name, and whether they are real stamps or not doesn't refute the notability of the topic. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that. The sources all seem to be about "anarchists and stamps" not "anarchist stamp." BigJim707 (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here for usage in The Guardian. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It talked about an artist's "designs for anarchist stamps" not actual stamps.BigJim707 (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, whether these stamps have postal value not, that's not a valid reason to delete the article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. However the article is talking about pictures of imaginary stamps. BigJim707 (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't seem to be any more notable than "flower stamps" or "lighthouse stamps" or any other kind of stamps. Admittedly I don't have access to the book with its essay by Colin Ward, but I don't see that the lead of the article, which discusses why an anarchist stamp is ironic, is based on any source. Even so, one source would not establish "anarchist stamp" as a thing. (The RAForum link is not a suitable source, as a. it appears to be user-generated and so not reliable b. seems to rely on the Ward essay, rather than being independent.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that RAForum is unsuitable as user-generated, as I can find no place to register for the website to add content. Also, we've established that The Guardian is not the only source.

• Comment This archived French website documenting anarchist work also contains several examples and descriptions of anarchist stamps (for the page translated from French to English, see here. In French, the word for stamp is "timbre." I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 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." (WP:GNG) 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." AutomaticWriting 00:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize you have not yet seen the new changes to the article, but your argument about why this page should not be kept per WP:DIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE are not especially appropriate here. No one here has made an argument that this article should be kept because WP should have everything in it. The article is sourced, its notability is asserted clearly in the following ways:

• Their historical, political use during the Spanish Civil War,
• their use in labor unions,
• the value of some anarchist stamps to stamp collectors, and
• the fact that stamps have been produced recently and are written about.

All of this information is backed up by third-party, independent sources (or primary sources as necessary, such as actual pictures). I again fail to see why this article should be deleted, especially given my clean-up of the page. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This article is was all over the place: an original essay on Anarchists as stamp collectors, List of anarchists on postage stamps, and List of things that anarchists might like to collect. Out of bounds delete, close call, and delete on those three components, respectively. If that means I'm recommending delete here, so be it. One MIGHT be able to change this to the second-mentioned, chop the hell out of it, and provide enough documentation for a save. I'm not holding my breath. Carrite (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have cleaned up the page 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. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Topical stamp collecting is a world unto itself and I'm not going to pass judgment here. I'll strike some of my snark in the wake of a real effort to address concerns raised at this AfD. Carrite (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've been collecting stamps for forty years and have never heard the term. Don't just take my word for it – there's nothing in any of the major philatelic publications such as Stanley Gibbons, Scotts, Linn's etc. The article is largely original research, and the references do not support any of the claims. The creator seems to be renaming propaganda stamps (which is a widely accepted term).--Dmol (talk) 10:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I also have been collecting stamps for forty years and have attended numerous philatelic meetings and read huge amounts of philatelic literature and I have never heard this term. This is simply not a recognised class of stamp among philatelists and they ought to know. This is a made up subject IMHO and close to being a spoof because it amuses people to connect stamps (usually issued by governments) and anarchism which is anti-state. At best, this is a possible section within Cinderella stamps in the section for Propaganda stamps as has already been indicated. I have checked four dictionaries of philatelic terms, including the latest by Stanley Gibbons and this term does not appear. Alternatively I would support a rename to Anarchism on stamps which would be a perfectly proper topical stamp collecting article, but there is no such thing as an Anarchist stamp. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with the two comments above, but as someone who never collects stamps and finds the whole thing a bit weird. I think to justify the existence of a separate article on Anarchist stamps, some evidence would have to be provided that Anarchist stamps are considered a category of stamps in philatelic circles. I would support the proposal to merge whatever information has been gathered here into other suitable articles on stamps. AutomaticWriting 12:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is the point. If it is not a recognised type of stamp among philatelists (and it isn't) then the article simply can't stand in its present form. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: 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 here. The article appear to be a mix of some WP:OR mixed with a little WP:SYN 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. ww2censor (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree to move to something more appropriate. This isn't (entirely) appropriate for Cinderella stamps because some of the stamps were government-issued and had postage value. I agree that this is more appropriate for something like Stamps with anarchist themes or Stamps with anarchism. However, I disagree that the information is not backed up by sources. They are, and I put a lot of work into this and careful wording to ensure the article reflects what info the sources provide. If you're claiming this is WP:OR or WP:HOAX, you need to let me know what information is inaccurate. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: grab-bag of loosely-related topics (stamps made by an anarchist in anticipation of a future government collapse, official government stamps that happen to feature an anarchist, stamps issued and used by a labour union, that happened to be anarcho-syndicalist, during the Spanish Civil War), brought together by blatant WP:Synthesis. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The official government stamps were also designed by well-known anarchist Clifford Harper. The scope here is not loose at all, and there's a consistent theme of anarchists designing stamps about anarchists. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Harper's stamps were "for post-revolutionary post" -- the "he made his personal contribution to the Royal Mail" bit is clearly tongue-in-cheek. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the article again, you are probably correct (I've also removed from the beginning that they were government-issued based on your insight). But, why is it wrong to include stamps made for that purpose? It still falls within the scope of this kind of topical stamp. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That they would be considered a single "kind of topical stamp" is less than clear (portraits of anarchists versus anarchist slogans), and lacking a source -- the purported commonality appears more in the 'reason for stamp manufacture' -- and even there the differences are greater than the commonality (the mere shared political ideology) -- between the fanciful creation of stamps "for post-revolutionary post" and the pragmatic creation of stamps in the middle of a civil war, in order to keep some (presumably ad hoc) mail service running. This would be a little like lumping together Soviet-produced AK-47s together with some (communist) urban guerilla's home-made zip gun, and calling them Communist guns. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can the articles author provide a sample of one of these stamps? Something official, stamps are produced by governments not by authors of books. A link would do. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are the best I can find on this archived French website that is currently cited one the article. Some (not all) appear to have postage value. Also, I am stepping out of this AfD as I've said what I've needed to, so I will not be responding to further argumentation. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One or more might have a placed here.[[1]] It would be the authors place to justify there placement within the article. The judge would be, perhaps must be, the many philatelist in the world. This subject needs some, several, many 'authorities" in the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs) 05:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the stamps shown on that page would be classed as "Cinderella stamps". The only postal use any of them could have would be local postage (which is another sub-section of Cinderella stamps), and even then only three of the stamps shown look to me to be locals; the others all appear to be propaganda labels. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment would it be fair to say that there's a consensus forming around the idea that at least some of the information in the article belongs on Wikipedia somewhere, but that it doesn't warrant a standalone article? If so, we should start discussing mergers. AutomaticWriting 20:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If merging is the new consensus, I'm allowing myself to rejoin the discussion. So far, proposed mergers have been to Cinderella stamps#Political and propaganda stamps. Another possibility is to briefly describe this under topical stamp collecting. I would prefer the former, as its description seems to best capture the content in the current article:

...the term propaganda stamp is usually used to mean unofficial stamps produced to promote a particular ideology, or to create confusion within an enemy state.

One concern is that this definition isn't sourced to anything, but examples are provided. Regardless, what do others think of these mergers? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surmising that that's the consensus, since most objections aren't to the inclusion of the information in Wikipedia per se, but rather to having a separate article.AutomaticWriting 22:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we are not going to delete it then by far the easiest solution would just to change it to Anarchism on stamps as that would require only minimal changes. It would then fit in with Birds on stamps, Ships on stamps etc. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Cinderella stamp, sub-section "Political and propaganda stamps" Daveosaurus (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are we going to put in the Cinderella Stamps article? As a matter of fact it has been established that there is no such thing as an Anarchist Stamp so it is either delete or turn it into a topical article as Anarchism on Stamps. We can't keep it because we can't have an article about something that does not exist. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose merge to Cinderella or topicals as there is nothing to merge. The existance of anarchist stamps has not been proven. It can not be merged to topical stamps as inclusion will always be subjective and not based on fact. The information in the article as it stands is POV and OR and I have alreaded voted for deletion.--Dmol (talk) 22:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is nothing to merge and I think the earlier summary of the consensus was wrong. The consensus actually is delete which I support, however, there is nothing wrong with turning it into a Anarchism on Stamps article as I am sure some stamps have been issued showing anarchist themes somewhere, or important figures in the history of anarchism, if others feel strongly that some of the content should be retained. In that respect it would be as valid as any other topical stamps article, although I am not a fan of topical collecting myself. Possibly that is what the article should have been to start with and what the creator intended? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to Cinderella stamps#Political and propaganda stamps. As the topic is sourcable, how and what to merge can be discussed and accomplished through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There has been enough focusing and work done on this article that it has moved from "mess" to "meritorious" in my estimation. This is now a piece on topical stamp collecting, sources showing, which should be of use to philatelists. Carrite (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The piece does need to be renamed, in my opinion. See Philafrenzy's comment above. Carrite (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Last change: Carrite (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Anarchism on stamps. If the creator had used this title in the first place it would have been almost the same article and this debate would not have occurred. The fact that some of the stamps referenced are postal issues and some cinderellas is not a problem for a topical article either. The lead now reads Anarchist stamps are postage stamps created with images of persons or events representing anarchism so it is straight forward to adapt it from there. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a piece on topical stamp collecting, sources showing, which should be of use to philatelists, per comments above by Carrite, and I agree. The distinction between stamps issued by "states" (i.e. governments), and non-state actors is important in seeing why this article is informative, and different from stamps about other political causes such as socialism, issued by governments. The rename suggestions have merit. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I closed this as Delete because I believed the Keep arguments were mainly weak, but having been asked to look at it again I note that some Delete votes were cast while the article was in a poorer state; therefore I have reopened it and will leave it for someone else to close. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:37, 29 July 2011 (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.