Deletion of Indie cred

Comment: Despite the nom's comments, I believe it does ''not'' violate  given the citation in the article and per Dhartung's comments.  However, as the article stands it adds little more than a standard dictionary definition and therefore is perilously close to violating the policy that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: You're not forgiven; this is an obviously notable neologism, with http://news.google.com/archivesearch?tab=pn&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=indie.cred 600+ Google News Archive results and http://books.google.com/books?tab=np&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=indie.cred 26 Google Books results including at least one definition. The New York Times used it in a headline, and defined it, in http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70814FE3B5F0C778DDDAB0894D1494D81 1999 (paywall). It's used extensively in two domains: independent music, and independent film-making. Heck, the article ''comes ready-made'' with a reference to a dictionary of music terms, and since  tells us to avoid words that haven't appeared in dictionaries yet ... it may not fall under  at all
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NEO)