Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PwnageTool

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. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PwnageTool

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

It is just one of the many softwares meant to alter the iPhone software and the entire page is dedicated to look like a release note for software. It's not worthy of stand alone page. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article needs a lot of work, but it's a notable subject. PwnageTool is an important jailbreaking tool covered by many news articles over the years - with a quick search, here are some: CNet April 2008, CNet April 2008, InformationWeek August 2008, PCWorld November 2008, TUAW November 2008, CNet April 2009 (notes that PwnageTool was "cited by the EFF in its submission" about DMCA exemptions for jailbreaking), PCWorld June 2009, PCWorld September 2009, Time May 2010, ComputerWorld July 2010, CNet October 2010. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are fairly trivial coverage. I'm not seeing enough notability to warrant a stand alone article in addition to the page its developer have. This entire article is used as a release note depository. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For more coverage showing that popular tech blogs have considered it important, see Engadget's PwnageTool category with 26 posts, TUAW's PwnageTool category with 12 posts, MacLife's PwnageTool category with 9 posts, a bunch of posts on Ars Technica (March 2008, April 2008, September 2009), etc. Gizmodo also published many PwnageTool articles (see a Google search for "site:gizmodo.com pwnagetool"), but its archives are offline right now.

This book covers how to jailbreak with "Pwnage", an early name for PwnageTool. This book also explains how to jailbreak with PwnageTool. This book calls PwnageTool the most popular jailbreaking tool at that time.

It may be even more interesting that PwnageTool was discussed as an example jailbreaking tool by both Apple and the EFF in the 2009 DMCA exemption hearings. The EFF's comments included: "For example, the most popular iPhone jailbreaking software, PwnageTool, decrypts and creates a modified version of the iPhone firmware so as to neutralize the authentication checks that prevent applications not signed by Apple from running." This transcript of the hearings includes a lot of discussion of PwnageTool. This paper also mentions it in that context: "When describing the current software used for jailbreaking, Apple makes it clear that the modified firmware is not being sold commercially. Apple notes that a program called “PwnageTool,” which uses unauthorized modifications to the iPhone’s firmware, is being freely distributed on the web to perform the jailbreaking function."

I believe that PwnageTool is notable enough for its own independent article, with these references showing that a lot can be written about it. This article could be improved to reasonable status by adding context and condensing the lists into cited prose. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are many mentions, although not in great depth. The page as it stands is a release note page for the software. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these references are short articles written because of PwnageTool and discussing several details of it. We could use them to write a decent article without reaching for original research or primary sources. They aren't just mentioning PwnageTool among lists of jailbreaking tools, for example. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to comment. I was reading through another one of their programs, redsn0w or something and it mentions, there's an option to install something called Cydia, and your user page says you work for Cydia. Is the non-inclusion of PwnageTool something of conflicting interest with Cydia? Cantaloupe2 (talk)

PwnageTool does have an option to install Cydia on the iOS versions it supports, but I believe I don't have a significant conflict of interest here partly because it's an outdated tool no longer used by many people (redsn0w is now the primary tool; it supports many more iOS versions and has many more features) - this article is just of historical interest. Also, according to these statistics, it's only visited 80-100 times a day, which would make advocating for it a poor use of time for somebody trying to promote Cydia (which has millions of users). It's good to discuss COI though; I take it seriously too. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is notable just like any other software on wikipedia. --JetBlast (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? Wikipedia doesn't allow any software to get added if they're not noteworthy. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the page in its current state is just a set of release notes and doesn't provide sufficient context. That doesn't constitute a reason for deletion. Following from WP:NSOFT, I believe the available sources provide notability, especially as they are from a variety of reliable sources over a period of several years. §everal⇒|Times 22:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several notable sites have discussed the product. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

such as? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamyshade has posted numerous sources above, at least a few of which extend beyond trivial coverage. As per WP:N, sources need not feature a subject as their primary topic to establish notability. §everal⇒|Times 19:16, 13 November 2012 (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.