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 no consensus, after extended time for discussion. There are reasonable arguments that coverage is sufficient to keep, and apparently little appetite for deletion of this subject. BD2412T 00:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software package, page is a product brochure, all sources are the software's website. Being included in various Linux distros' repositories is not a claim to notability. There are a handful of Google hits for it, but almost all are blogs - the only one I found which might confer notability is this, but it's a how-to article, and I'd argue that a how-to isn't SIGCOV. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note - if this ends up as delete, please restore the previous redirect to Rsync - this was an expanded redirect. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jackmcbarn: Fair enough, the fact that the text is freely licensed isn't made super clear on the page itself. In any event, Ed1964 has removed most of the copy-pasted text at this point so it's a non-issue. I've stricken my speedy delete !vote accordingly. Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edward - rclone seems to be widely used and has been involved in attacks on Diebold ATMs [1][2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rclone (talk • contribs) 01:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralNotability The references to rclone being rsync were incorrect. Rclone is rclone and rsync is rsync. rsync seems to have influenced rclone in some way but it didn't belong on the rsync page or redirected to rsync and it was originally trying to fix that erroneous redirect that got me into this furore to start with. Rclone (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Computing industry genuine news-site theregister.com reported the controversy involving rclone and Amazon Drive (not AWS S3) in 2017.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed1964 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wrote that comment about theregister and forgot to sign it.Ed1964 (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That rclone is in widespread use in situations is supported by the number of high performance computing institutions whose websites explain how to use rclone to transfer large research data sets from genomic and other fields. For instance the search 'rclone hpc' lists customised instructions from leading research bodies. Ed1964 (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some more work on this now. It would clearly have been better set off in a sandbox - in fact that was what I thought I had done before the furore started. I hope it will now be found to be noteworthy, interesting and worthy of the effort put into it. Ed1964 (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
rclone is examined in academic work by the University of Kentucky at [1] The 2018 paper cites the rclone.org website and also makes reference to a further paper from the University of Utah. Both papers relate to use of rclone as a data transfer agent in a high performance computing environment. These are the sort of articles that make rclone noteworthy. They have nothing to do with me, or as far as I can tell the team that seem to be behind rclone. Ed1964 (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I'm leaning more on the keep side of things now thanks to the academic citations. I'm still not 100% certain that it meets WP:GNG, but the newly added sources certainly showcase fairly wide usage in contexts that would reasonably generate sources we could use. I'll take a look around and see if I can find some additional sources that could be added. Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article has been WP:REFBOMBed with lots of citations, but these are pretty much all trivial mentions. - MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Nathan2055. I think the citations are more than just mentions in passing. Jackmcbarn (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a request to keep the page. I largely wrote the words on it and use the software. Previously rclone redirected to the rsync page and it was to correct that I set up a new page. I thought I was still in the sandbox but chasing the rsync redirect took me out unawares - hence the then holding text that attracted so much attention. Rclone is not rsync, it does not use rsync. It does not belong as a redirect to rsync. Rclone is widely used. I provide above references to hpc research units using it. I provide references above to hackers using it to attack banking systems. In between are the multitute of ordinary people using it, like so much notable software, for dull stuff. Exceptionally for software doing such dull stuff, and from public funds rather than developer promotion rclone has been subject to real academic evaluation. It is there in the abstract and there in the method and there in the results and there in the conclusion. The Kentucky paper is not a reference in passing.[1]Ed1964 (talk) 09:41, 9 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.