Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indie cred

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indie cred

Indie cred (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

although referenced, seems to appear under WP:NEO. No neologisms please.
"Street cred" has more cred than indie cred... (forgive me) ZayZayEM 01:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. You're not forgiven; this is an obviously notable neologism, with 600+ Google News Archive results and 26 Google Books results including at least one definition. The New York Times used it in a headline, and defined it, in 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 WP:NEO tells us to avoid words that haven't appeared in dictionaries yet ... it may not fall under WP:NEO at all. --Dhartung | Talk 01:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • What does Google hits mean? Additionally one use by NYT in 1998 really cements it as a (now obsolete) neologism. If it doesn't catch on, it shouldn't get used in wikipedia. --ZayZayEM 02:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above -- maybe a newly coined term, but Dhartung's findings are convincing enough. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dhartung's logic Giggy UCP 02:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. CraigMonroe 03:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment When will those greedy record companies realize that they can never reproduce the quality of music that comes from artists who can't get a record contract? ~ Infrangible 03:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This article reeks of pretense, especially the presumption that someone could not attain critical acclaim without "indie cred." This is simply not true. If this is a term being used by elitist fans who hate a band as soon as they sell a bunch of records, I could see it being an article. But it's not being defined that way. Dhartung's assertion that this is "used extensively" is unsourced, and just because it was used in a NYT headline doesn't fulfill the notability standard. K-lit 03:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment By nominating, you already voted to delete. Also, because I determined that the topic was notable does not mean that I back every dumb statement in a badly-written article about that topic. WP:SOFIXIT. --Dhartung | Talk 09:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, I teased out the full NYT definition within their article: Used in rock since 1985 or so, it refers to an unhyped credibility based on unpredictability, on the thrill of new MUSIC that is not formulaic. So in 1999 the Times said it was a term that had been around for well over a decade. --Dhartung | Talk 09:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: K-lit did not nominate.--ZayZayEM 02:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Very, very weak keep. Despite the nom's comments, I believe it does not violate WP:NEO 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. -- DS1953 talk 04:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dhartung, though the article certainly could use some work. Maxamegalon2000 05:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Slight Keep this reeks of being a dictionary entry, and needs to be expanded, preferably with more sources. --Android Mouse 22:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It needs sources.--Bubulina8888 05:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As Dhartung noted, it's a common, notable term.  hmwith  talk 23:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
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.