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 Server 2016 build 10513
this page claims that various files from this build are available to download from a "RemoteIE" server, but it doesnt specify which exactly. This is why i think this page should be deleted. In addition, remoteie has been offline for quite some time according to my little knowledge i have of this thing. Norman (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This should be related IMO, IDK if they're still up. CI611 (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * looks like it, but these are still just random files from that build, so i still think the article should go. Norman (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ref to Windows_10_build_10585 I don't think this page should simply go since the files we can get is much more than a single ntoskrnl.exe, surely this dump is far from complete and usable but there might stand a chance to get it running with 10512's files. Anyway I won't state my opinion and it's up to you guys to make the final conclusion. CI611 (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Norman (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Xeno (talk) - I don't agree that solely file versions should be allowed. References to builds in the file itself are acceptable to me. 03:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) I do agree with Xeno. ToMi (talk | contribs) 09:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) I mentioned this on the talk page already. The IP who uploaded the screenshot is blocked and there is absolutely no source for either the screenshot or the build tag. I believe it should be removed for this reason. -- Ryuzaki  (talk | contribs) 11:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Yeah i agree it should be removed. There is no source for that screenshot whatsoever Norman 11:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Reverse image searching redirects to this article, no source so it should be gone.Winins (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) No source provided and created by an IP lowers my trust in this being legit. Xeno (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Verify source
This is a broken template that was imported from Wikipedia. It has no use whatsoever. -Gamerappa (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Wabbah/My favorite builds
QD. -- 14:50, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you guys delete User:Wabbah/My favorite builds? I don't need it anymore. Wabbah (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Wabbah
 * You could've used the QD template instead. ToMi (talk | contribs) 18:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Blockland and the articles for it's versions
This article of mine seems out of place for this wiki. Even more out of place considering the fact that CollabVM's community seems to be interested in the game. I've decided to move the Blockland article onto a currently-private wiki. -Gamerappa (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Orangera1n (talk | contribs) I belive games should be allowed, if they have betas and are notable to an extent. As this has many betas ,and is noteable to an extent.
 * only problem is that most of the wiki's attention is focused on builds of versions of Windows (and macOS to a lesser extent), it has been frequently debated if games should even deserve a spot on betawiki. -Gamerappa (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) 我是王牌66 14:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC) However, like Minecraft, there are already a lot of documents on the official wiki. With this, it is essentially meaningless. The game wiki we mentioned probably has more information than the game articles here, because the main focus of this wiki is the beta version of the operating system, although from the wiki articles, it may also be a library wiki.
 * 2) MShinoda8768 14:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Xeno (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Jurta (talk • contribs) 14:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Winins (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Windows XP build 2600.1089
I don't see the point in keeping this build considering there's not even a single screenshot of it, or any sourcr which proves that Set Prpgram Accesses and Defaults uses the RTM icon. For all I know the screenshots could've been distributed together and there's nothing to prove they come from the same build. And no, just TCB listing the build doesn't count as a source. --AhmadB 07:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) MShinoda8768 07:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) 我是王牌66 14:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Xeno (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Jurta (talk • contribs) 14:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) ToMi (talk | contribs) 06:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Winins (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

OS X EI Capitan
This seems like a pretty implausible typo to me. Just because some Chinese sites can't tell a lowercase L apart from an uppercase I does not warrant a redirect. enwiki doesn't have it either. -- Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 13:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "because there are still lots of newers using the wrong "I""
 * That's not a valid argument for keeping a redirect (should we make "AppIe" redirect??? Of course not), and besides, "lots" is an overstatement. --93.126.192.160 07:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) 我是王牌66 I don't agree do delete, because [] and [] are both existing in Sogou baike, software installation firmware had also mentioned in [] that said is 'Ei Capitan', it also contains an installation in [].
 * 2) We should keep this redirect to remind visitors that the "I" is a typo, because there are still lots of newers using the wrong "I". GT610 &#124; Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  Ryuzaki  (talk | contribs) 13:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) MShinoda8768 13:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Haven't seen anyone else make this mistake Xeno 13:53 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Jurta (talk • contribs) 13:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) AhmadB (talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Puntillol59 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Winins (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) SeregaWin555 (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

MacOS Big Sur build 20A4299u
Same thing with OS X El Capitan, simply a misinterpretation by some Chinese website. Jurta (talk • contribs) 14:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) 我是王牌66 I don't agree do delete, because its firmware download said some Macs shown build in about info on 'Settings' build is 20A4299u, some is 20A4299v. Reference: [] and [], []. 20a4299u is a preview, and 20a4299v is a beta.
 * You're referencing the same websites that misinterpreted it in the first place, that's not gonna support your claim as much as you think it does. Jurta (talk • contribs) 11:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think '20A4299u' that is a Xcode build (normal build are 20A4299v and 20A5299w), because if the build end with a 'v' or 'w' (eg. 14A5261v, 19A5261w, 20A4299u's normal build 'v' [20A4299v] and 'w' [20A5299w] are both exist), then the Xcode build changed with a 'u' (eg. 14A5261u, 19A5261u, both exist 'v' and 'w' also can changed to 'u', so it is 20A4299u), this means '20A4299u' is a Xcode build, redirected to a normal build. (by User:我是王牌66)
 * Please provide a source. --GT610 &#124; Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Specifically an English one, because all the sources they've given so far are from Chinese websites. Jurta (talk • contribs) 09:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Xcodereleases does not display any results for "20A4299u". Jurta (talk • contribs) 11:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Jurta (talk • contribs) 14:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) MShinoda8768 14:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) AhmadB (talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  14:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Puntillol59 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Xeno (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) Few Chinese websites mistook the build string, and we do not need to keep it to remind others. GT610 &#124; Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) SeregaWin555 (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) Winins (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) ToMi (talk | contribs) 08:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Angry Birds
Like with Minecraft, there are far superior websites such as this one that are way better at covering this game. So i think this should be removed. MShinoda8768 09:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Norman 09:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) Chrmmice 09:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) GT610 &#124; Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Winins (talk) 06:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Jurta (talk • contribs) 06:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Xeno (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) 我是王牌66 11:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Harmony OS
First, without any builds mentioned or a single screenshot, this page looks like a pure advertisement. Definitely not even 1% beta thus it should simply go.

Then, multiple sources has indicated that (the generally meaning of) HarmonyOS is merely a renamed EMUI, a spin of Android. If this page continued to stay, then more, and uncontrollable Android spins may flow in, this is actually scary consider the amounts of OEMs and their products.

Finally, EVEN IF someone with a huwwei could improve the page, I don't found it much notable for common readers. I mean, mobile OSs are not easily installable by any random person and even someone maybe documenting them here, they would become most likely useless after some period of time.

Kind regards

CI611 (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) 我是王牌66 11:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC) it is also a OS, and i added builds, it has many builds. So we shouldn't delete it, some builds are known.

Support

 * 1) CI611 (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) MShinoda8768 05:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Winins (talk) 06:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) Jurta (talk • contribs) 06:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) Chrmmice 08:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Icanttellyou (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) AhmadB (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Xeno (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) 我是王牌66 07:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Early Chicago fakes
I think that the notability of builds 21i, 26, 36, 38, 45, 47 and perhaps more should be reevaluated. All of these were only shown in some old BetaArchive threads and aside from BetaWiki and I can't believe it's not BetaWiki there is no other webpage about these builds so I am not sure if they even have the "potential to confuse people about their legitimacy" as the Guidelines put the conditions on documenting fake builds. -- 22:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)