BetaWiki:Articles for deletion

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Windows Me build 2365
Deleted on 3 January 2023. BF10 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This build is not notable. The author of the article said (on my user talk page) that the build number is mentioned in a "Windows Me activities center video", however they did not provide a link to the "video", so the build is not notable. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) NaraInsider1694 (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. I think they can move to Hall of Shame. Hanhan188 (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why Hall of Shame? I don't think it would go to the Hall of Shame. Brennan1234567890 (Talk page | Contributions) 00:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) No indication of notability; also the video uploader has a history of questionable contributions to the wiki. -- 08:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Prerty much what Ryuzaki has said. Xeno (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * lol Ggsetup 16:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Obviously not notable and fake. Brennan1234567890 (Talk page | Contributions) 00:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So i set it from unconfirmed to fake ? Ggsetup
 * You should set it to fake, since you passed off a fake build from someone who cannot be trusted. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will at to list of build of Windows Me at fake Ggsetup
 * You don't need to do that. I removed the build from the Windows Me article for a reason. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What you reason ? Ggsetup 17:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the build is not notable AND fake. Offtopic: I suspect that your English is not good based on your own grammar. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree with Ryuzaki and Xeno on this one. This doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Shame (it's not even bad enough to IMO). Tobi (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is 1 day guy Ggsetup (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What even... Tobi (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Barely notable. MyFaceNeverWhen (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Ggsetup Im now send the video link to to narainsider user page so I have proof to this build exist, just look at desktop right bottom and read the build number
 * Remember, KenOath cannot be trusted. They shared some fake builds (which might include the build I mentioned) in the past, so builds originating from KenOath can be considered non-notable. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's way too easy for someone to put a build number in a corner for that to prove anything. The fact it claims to be registered to KenOath is also a giant red flag, since there have been cases of other people trying to pass off fake builds this way. Lastly, it shouldn't take countless requests and a deletion discussion for you to finally provide a link to said video. On this wiki, we work with facts and if you add content, you should also ideally provide sources right away. -- 08:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh ok,anyway, it will be fake until it mention in a Windows Me build 2368 or higher, someone of you find because im only have mobile Ggsetup 16:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Mebuild2365.jpeg
Deleted on 3 January 2023. BF10 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, Windows Me build 2365 is not notable, so we should delete this file. Brennan1234567890 (Talk page | Contributions) 00:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There was no need to make a new AfD just for the image, you could have simply appended your request to your message above. Xeno (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Shouldn't this be merged with the main discussion above? Either way, it's best to delete this also. --Tobi (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Windows Server (Core)
We don't really need a whole page for a SKU of Windows Server. It is simply not notable enough to have an article of its own. Core is simply an edition/SKU of Windows Server that lacks the desktop interface and instead uses the Command Prompt as its user interface. For example, an article on an edition of Windows 7 like Enterprise would absolutely not be notable since it can be detailed on the Editions section of the Windows 7 page. The exception of course would be if the particular SKU or edition has major differences that make it notable in some way like with the many Windows XP variants.

The draft page of Windows Server has a whole section dedicated to talking about what Windows Server Core is and how it differs from a regular Windows Server installation. Because of that, an article on Windows Server Core is just not necessary since it can be explained on that page since it applies to Windows Server as a whole.

I know this was a little overdue, but since the information about the Core SKU of Windows Server is on the Windows Server page, I think it is safe that we delete the Windows Server Core page.

WindowsGuy2021, 6:54, 12 January 2023, (UTC)

Support

 * 1) NaraInsider1694 (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2) ✅ Support. We don't need pages for SKUs, they are not necessary. Windows_logo_(2006).svg 763004 (Talk &bull; Sandbox) 14:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 3) The SKUs available/shown are on the build pages, so this draft is useless. Windows_logo_(1985).svg MyFaceNeverWhen  &bull;  TALK.EXE  00:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Already mentioned in the main Windows Server page