Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Asset Modeling Language

Digital Asset Modeling Language

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Coverage seems to be limited to PR and press in less-than-reliable cryptocurrency publications like Coindesk (RSP entry) (here's some from CoinTelegraph, a publication I'm not familiar with, but that still look PRish: [1]). Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. N.b. that the article was originally drafted by editors blocked for spamming, although it has since then received attention from editors in good standing. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think these 2 citations currently in the article might be reasonable: [2][3]. One is from a Forbes writer (not contributor), and the other is an interview for a seemingly-serious ACM-affiliated journal, and it includes a fair bit of secondary commentary from the journal/interviewer. In addition, I found a couple minor sources that don't sway my opinion due to briefness or non-independence, but may be helpful for expanding details in the article: [4] [5]. This source might just barely have enough of its own analysis to be described as independent: [6]. Jlevi (talk) 02:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misread that Forbes piece. Still, all in all I think we're short of GNG. The ACM-affiliated piece is more than a fluff interview, but all of the actual information about DAML is still coming directly from an affiliated source. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]