https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Apache_Arrow
And some possible additional sources:
* https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2019/09/24/dr...
* https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180906005114/en
* https://thesiliconreview.com/2016/02/apache-arrow-is-the-new...
The second is a press release by Arrow's sponsoring company, which, obviously, WP won't accept as an RS.
I have no idea what "The Silicon Review" is; this is the first time I've ever seen it. To the extent it's not a pay-to-play trade publication, it might qualify as a notability-establishing source. The fact that the "Review" does not itself have a WP page might make it harder to claim it's reliable, since it suggests nobody else knows what it is, either.
The "Silicon Review" one looks like a pay-to-play as well after further review, it's used in citation on a few other Wikipedia articles, but as far as I can tell, and due to some anecdotal stories, it doesn't look good.
* https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicRelations/comments/bha6hs/sil...
* https://arpr.com/blog/4-pay-for-play-scams/
Good catch, thanks for spending the time to review my links. Reading your comments above, I largely agree. It's a high bar (mostly) to get an article on Wikipedia, and that's a good thing. It allows us to read the majority of content on Wikipedia without too much suspicion.
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but it's obvious advertising and has no place on Wikipedia. Maybe a Medium post would be more appropriate.
Wikipedia already has a problem with bad software articles like this.
What I think should disqualify it is that it's missing a lot of detail that would make the entry genuinely useful. As it is, it's as useful as a press release. Also, it does appear to have a problem with appropriate references.
Generally speaking, I have a hard time disagreeing with the reasons listed on that page for the rejections.