1. Not independent or significant coverage.

2. Not independent. "At the time we started"

3. Not independent or significant coverage.

4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16. Those sources are okay but they are kind of just random websites. There isn't really any broader newspaper or magazine coverage of this.

6 and 17. I'm not sure specialist how-to books count towards significant coverage.

7. I doubt Powerpoints count towards significant coverage.

8. Interview, not really fully independent.

12. Interview, not fully independent.

13. Company website, not independent.

15. I'm not sure that pdf essay counts towards significant coverage.

Honestly, this is borderline but I'm not sure if it's enough to support a stand-alone Wikipedia article. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "this is borderline". If from start the moderators' feedback would contain at least a short per/source review as you provided, it would be smoother and much faster. Visortelle (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the more specific answer.
1. It's not a source, but rather a metadata. It has been added using Wikidata which has a special field for articles about software projects whose source is publicly available. How can it be viewed as a source? <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1324>
3. Same - metadata about this kind of projects.
4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 14, and 16. - should I keep them?
6 and 17 (books) - they cover the subject quite well. The documentation on the official site of course is more up-to-date, but both books have a good introduction into the problems that Pulsar intended to solve, it's history, it's architecture.
The publisher is O'Reilly Media. It's a reputable publisher with editor team.
Rest points: Apache Pulsar isn't a scientific research project. It doesn't imply writing scientific papers, same as many other software projects which have articles on the Wikipedia.
Also its unlikely New York Times, Washington Post, or any other magazine will publish anything about it.
Both books contain all the little amount of information mentioned in this article. Visortelle (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't saying you should remove those sources. I was just evaluating them on whether they contributed towards notability. You can still use sources that don't count towards notability as references for other facts. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You answered only about my referencing to other projects but didn't answer anything about the book's reliability.
Also didn't answer anything about the Pulsar notability. Visortelle (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Maybe those tens of articles should not exist. I don't know, I haven't examined every one or its sources. It's possible that this class of software does not merit Wikipedia articles because it lacks the appropriate sources. It is true that sourcing and verification requirements mean that some topic areas are underserved, but these policies are necessary. Articles do not just summarize facts- they should summarize what is said about a topic and what makes it notable. 331dot (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Do these articles contributes to notability:
<https://thenewstack.io/13-reasons-why-enterprises-should-use-apache-pulsar/#:~:text=Apache%20Pulsar%20has%20a%20tiered,resources%20for%20different%20data%20types>
<https://zendesk.engineering/evaluating-apache-pulsar-92e6ed3fc792>
<https://www.clouddatainsights.com/apache-pulsar-core-technology-for-streaming-applications/>
Visortelle (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
It could also be that the class of software as a whole might merit an article, but not individual software programs. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you mean - instead of writing an article for each program, write a single article on all the programs?
There are such articles that explain the problem that this class of programs solves: Message broker, Message queue
I don't think so. Each of them They are very different.
It's like saying that there shouldn't be article about each kind of animal - lion, zebra, cat, etc., but rather a single article about all the animals on the planet. Visortelle (talk) 10:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
The problem I see is that people who aren't interested in the subject, are trying to evaluate the subject's notability.
For example, I absolutely don't find notable each NFL player who has lived on a planet or Maine elections (per year!!!). But it may be important to someone, and that's OK. Visortelle (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

By looking at other Wikipedia articles, I don’t see that at least 20% of these requirements are fulfilled.