Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Asset Modeling Language

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. Weak keep is still a keep. Tone 16:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Weak keep: This may be WP:TOOSOON, or it may be a turkey. But I was interested enough to broswe through stuff a little. That isnt policy based though. I likely understand the money flow behind this one though. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2020 (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.