BetaWiki:Articles for deletion

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ Articles for deletion (AfD) is the place where we discuss whether an article should be deleted.

To nominate an article for deletion, add the  template to the top of the article and add a new section below this lead section explaining your rationale.

Windows 1.00
No arguments provided for deletion, therefore I close the discussion prematurely. Kept. -- 12:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this page sould be kept or sould be deleted or moved to the Hall of Shame.

Oppose

 * 1) That page isn't contained any low-quality contents, it's just getting badly vandalized. It's just needs improvements. Have you see the terribleness of Hall of Shame pages? That page isn't deserved to be moved. Also, what's the evidence of claiming the low quality of that page? -- 08:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) NaraInsider1694 (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Nova22 (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Windows 11 2022 Update updates
To keep in line with the guidelines and other pages, I'm proposing that we remove the non-notable Windows 11 2022 Update updates. Xeno (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2262x.xxx builds? Maybe. Anything earlier than 22621.1 or 22621.1? No. XPSrv (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 22621.xxx (Post GA) is what I'm targeting here. 22622.xxx can definitely stay. Xeno (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Xeno (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) 22621.xxx pages are useless. So, yeah. XPSrv (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) TedezaRize (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) NaraInsider1694 (talk) 10:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Agreed. They are very not-notable, especially the builds that are rolled to everyone, which is, maybe, just a decoy for they to work with Moment 1 -- 10:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Windows Server 2008 build 5383
This compliance.ini does not any sense. however, you can edit this compliance.ini can be upgraded. (Link) TedezaRize (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) TedezaRize (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) According to the guidelines, builds where their build number comes from a   or   file are not notable. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) If this stays for 1 month, or by 30 October 2022, this page, Windows Server 2008 build 5383, will be moved to the Hall of Shame. 149.19.33.71 9:14 EDT, 30 September 2022
 * No. -- 14:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would rather it to be deleted rather than moved to Hall of Shame. 94.121.91.29 (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wrong, if staying for 1 month, it would be changed to a QD.
 * 1) Shouldn't need an AfD given how it's effectively the same source as   Xeno (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can it be a proposed deletion? Someone (talk) 05:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC) (too lazy to write my custom signature code)
 * 1) There is a similar discussion on Archive 5 -- 15:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Fine. But I don't want it to be in Hall of Shame. I don't understand why there's a Hall of Shame. It mocks people for NO REASON. Just delete it ASAP. 94.121.91.29 (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Hall of Shame is for terrible quality articles. It's main purpose is give examples of low quality pages -- 11:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I agree. Delete the Windows Server 2008 build 5383 page. Brennan1234567890 (talk) 11:06 EDT, 2 October 2022

Oppose
No. 94.121.91.29 (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * what? -- 05:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said above, builds where their build number comes from a  or   file are NOT notable. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Windows 8.1 build 9458
Also moved to HOS. -- 15:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The supposed server counterpart of this build was deleted and moved to the Hall of Shame, and this article contains basically the exact same contents. It already has Template:Delete on it as well. Sporb (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Sporb (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) NaraInsider1694 (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Windows 8 build 7976
I withdrew AfD. TedezaRize (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

This build is fake no MS Confidential watermark. 7973 and 7978 have MS Confidential watermark. TedezaRize (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) TedezaRize (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Agree with what Ryuzaki said in the edit history. Xeno (talk) 08:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Computex 2011 and 8095 Same thing without MS Confidential watermark. do not know where the 7976 image from website. TedezaRize (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) NaraInsider1694 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) We should cancel this AfD immediately.
 * 3) Maybe this build uses the same mechanism of hiding confidential watermark as build 8102. -- 14:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Windows Vista build 5353 re-AFD
Has been withdrawn by the nominator. Brennan1234567890 (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2022 (EDT)

These Vista full build lists are not necessarily true. And Only a watermark screenshot is found. It seemed like Terminal GH. So I think it may be fake. Hanhan188 (talk)

Oppose

 * 1) The build isn't fake, as the source of this build is from a comment from an old TheVista.ru article about many of Windows Vista Beta 2 builds (ranging from 5221 to 5269) being revealed from a winbuilds network share. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) TedezaRize (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) There are sources listed and the page mentions unconfirmed. Xeno (talk) 09:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Windows 11 build 22000.1041
The article written this person is not good, can be moved to hall of shame. TedezaRize (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC) I am the creator,and you should check the article again. NexineTech2022

Support

 * 1) TedezaRize (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes, I looked at it and it is very poorly written. It just says that it adds the nonfiction badging for widgets. Whoever was writing this should have looked at the pages of the update builds and the guidelines and probably did not even observe and test said build which explains its poor quality. It is not a notable build given that it adds very little except for the aforementioned feature. It does not have an infobox, a gallery section and lacked detail overall. I think it should be in the Hall of Shame because it is yet another example of a poorly written page. WindowsGuy2021 9:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) NaraInsider1694 (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Agreed with WindowsGuy2021 -- 05:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) A badge notification isn't noteworthy. Xeno (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) What Xeno said. Sporb (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) NexineTech2022 I am the creator of that article. Anyways I oppose, because I added more information, and I think the article will be kept. (I only add builds which I know are not fake and add new features,so that is why I did not add 22000.1042).