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 10 build 14389 and 14321, Windows 8 build 7992 (fbl_uex_icp), Windows Vista build 5089, 5353 and 5708 == There're both only one screenshot about it.And there are no links about them.I think there're PS.
 * They are not PS. But these builds was on a different source! 2001:F90:40C0:A072:6CDB:CDDB:CC9E:D0CF 08:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) I asked about this on the Discord a few months ago and no one gave me a source. As mentioned, 14321 possibly comes from a Channel 9 video (RIP channel 9) so that should be kept Xeno (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I would spare 14321 as that one seems to come from a Channel 9 video and perhaps 5089, but the rest doesn't really seem notable. -- 16:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) The only one that I was able to find a source for was 5708, which is this BetaArchive forum post. However, there are replies to said post which call out some of the screenshots for being fake, so 5708 might still be up for deletion. I wasn't able to find any other sources for the other builds, but like Ryuzaki said, 14321 might originate from a Channel 9 video. Jurta (talk • contribs) 08:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) 5708's picture is literally scribbled on with a brush in MS Paint, plus not many sources, so yep, I think I think it should be deleted. Correct me if I'm wrong. 2402:800:6105:4717:842D:B9B:F0C8:41E0 04:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) That wasn't a problem for 5708. 2001:F90:40C0:A072:6CDB:CDDB:CC9E:D0CF 08:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Delete. --105.111.118.75 16:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) For builds 14389, 5353, and 5708. I still would like a source for 5353. For 5708, it originates from the BetaArchive thread above, but still rather dubious. Not sure where the 14389 came from. BF10 (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Just because there is one unconfirmed screenshot doesn’t mean the build isn’t noteable. Orangera1n (talk | edits) 11:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It quite literally does. Screenshots that can't be traced back to the original source are not proper sources to make a build notable. -- 16:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * BetaWiki has confirmed builds, same as unconfirmed. So it didnt 100% build is leaked. Just delete 5708
 * "Unconfirmed" means that the build was not confirmed by official sources. Notability guidelines still apply to these. -- 14:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Chrmmice (talk | edits) 13:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Even if they are just single screenshots, another factor that should be taken into consideration is if they match the timeframe for when they were compiled. To name a couple, 5353 appears to have been captured off a projector from a private demonstration event, which isn't unusual for these kinds of builds (e.g. 2415 of Whistler was also displayed on a projector screen). As for 5708, drawing edits aside, the JPEG artifacts and system tray icons give indication this was used by an internal tester and they simply decided to put this on their personal account(s)/website of sorts, which may or may not have any archived captures floating around. The "no notifications" marking also gives the impression this was meant to be used to report a bug in said build. Granted, even back then these could've easily been doctored in such ways to fool others, but as long as no continuity errors are visibly spotted, that opens up more room for debate whether these are legitimate or not, regardless of if sources can be traced back or not. My first suggestion to this would be to ask the users who created these articles about where they found out about these screenshots, as they'd probably still know. If they don't seem to recall, then that would put the builds more into questioning territory. --Blue Horizon (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That build 5089 was shown in the "Aero" page. 2001:F90:40C0:A072:500D:1A9D:213C:68F7 03:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) For builds 14321 (likely from Channel 9) and 5089. BF10 (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

OS/2 Warp 5
Deleted on 11 May 2022. BF10 (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This version is probably a fake and there's no source I can find to back up that this version was under development at the time. Not even sources like OS/2 Museum lists information regarding this "version". The closest I could find to information regarding to this version is this, which needless to say is fan rumors. Other sources regarding to Warp 5 refers it simply as eComStation or ArcaOS. Safe to say that this version is very likely a fake, and if it isn't, then there's no source I could find that can back it up as real. BF10 (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Xeno (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Nara Insider (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Sources that I could find that mention OS/2 Warp 5 are just speculation and don't really prove its authenticity, I doubt IBM ever started development on this version. Jurta (talk • contribs) 08:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Warp 5 just feels out of place in the timeline for having a scheduled release at a time when Windows was cornering the entire operating system market share, which had been widely the case ever since Windows 95 made a big splash in the technology scene. By 2005 when Windows Vista's final branding was announced and Windows XP was closing in on its peak in usage next year, most people saw OS/2 as a relic of the past, and it probably didn't make sense to IBM to release, let alone create a new version since they know it would only be a small niche of users interested in it. --Blue Horizon (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) I can still found some links about this version and i founded a crazy thing of the OS/2 Warp 5. (lol) link 2001:f90:40c0:a072:a1f9:79d4:a984:4029 13:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC+08:00)

Windows 10 build 10240.16425

 * Page (and respective images) deleted. I don't believe a post-RTM GDR build that has no significant changes over the base build is really worth noting here. - pivotman319 (📫) 12:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

This page was already QD'd although it doesn't really meet the criteria for that in my view. Either way it's still only an updated version of the RTM, so I don't think it actually belongs here. -- 08:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Per above. -- 08:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Caveria (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) While I stand corrected in the update situation, it's still a non-noteworthy build. Xeno (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) MEGA DL Link: https://mega.nz/folder/DYgCELaa#UiHQTeb2fiAKuBeqpsLPpQ BlueRain (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how having a download to the build changes how noteworthy it is. Xeno (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Some file for this link, the version was some 10240.16425 but even have some 10240.16430. 2001:F90:40C0:A072:F805:CD7:28B:FF74 12:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC+08:00)

Windows 10 build 15035/styles.css
Rejected; page will be kept. BF10 (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This CSS is nothing useful and not even used. --105.111.118.75 16:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) It's used for the table. So, yeah no. -- 10:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Nara Insider (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) BF10 (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Pages that reference the Terminal repo on GitHub
I feel that pages that reference the Terminal repo on GitHub should be removed most pages only reference a build number with no mention of notable changes, it is simply just a screenshot of Terminal with a build number. These pages are even less notable than the | Win10/11 CUs that were removed a few weeks ago. With that being said, I don't doubt that these builds are legit, and the guidelines do state that  but are the pages that reference the Terminal repo really notable? Xeno (talk)
 * If this AfD goes through, I may consider opening up another AfD for most other repos as these are as noteworthy as the Terminal pages. Xeno (talk) 00:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) I can't see this gaining traction but it's worth a shot in the dark. Xeno (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed, as per above. -- 10:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Nara Insider (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) WaterMelon (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) BF10 (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) I'm sorry.But it's not notable. Hanhan188 (talk) 0:56 June 5, 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Jurta (talk • contribs) 17:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) So we must delete. Offtopic: They must be changed the registry hives. 2001:F90:40C0:A072:5061:2F54:E04D:CC34 03:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I can't agree,but you can move to the "Windows 10 Github References builds" page. (talk) 7:22 June 4, 2022 (UTC+8)
 * what 2001:F90:40C0:A072:5538:340E:528D:BC7D 08:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC+8)

Windows 11 build 22621.2
Closed as  file. 2001:f90:40c0:a072:e45d:578f:4740:66d 17:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC+8)

Moved to AFD as the proposed deletion was removed. Reason I gave was Xeno (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Xeno (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Nara Insider (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Only proof of its existence is a .json file, don't really see that being notable. Jurta (talk • contribs) 12:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) WaterMelon (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) 31.148.163.153 16:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) I originally added a paragraph to the 22621.1 page for this, as it's the first known CU for the 22H2 RTM. I really don't think it needs its own page. 89.241.109.169 17:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) BF10 (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) 2001:F90:40C0:A072:6840:4743:E02B:B5F0 11:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I think the "cumulative update" version is necessary, which can display the RTM process of 22h2.
 * Other builds are just as capable of doing that, though. Jurta (talk • contribs) 12:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The build table is a good choice, just like the table sandbox of Xeon. If these builds are deleted, they may not be found again.
 * As 22614.101, the reference is same as this build. 2001:f90:40c0:a072:e45d:578f:4740:66d 18:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC+8)

Sxolinux
Removed on 29 June 2022. BF10 (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not really sure about the notability of this, so let's talk about it. -- 13:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Most Linux distributions on the site are also not notable. Xeno (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) WaterMelon (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Xeno. A good amount of Linux distros should be purged since they are simply based off the main distros such as Debian and Ubuntu with only package changes. BF10 (talk) 15:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Nara Insider (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't edit the AfD headers of proposals that are not yours, especially in the middle of an already ongoing discussion. What a nice conflict of interests, too. -- 15:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for editing the header. I forgot to read the guidelines first before editing. Nara Insider (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Windows 2000 build 2009
Author requested deletion. -- 15:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It's only a kernel debugger build. 2001:F90:40C0:A072:E45D:578F:4740:66D 20:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC+8)

Support

 * 1) Blue Horizon (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Nara Insider (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Windows Vista Builds were mentioned in Windows Setup
I think write these build is not true because the builds were not always existence. --Hanhan188 (talk). 11:27 June 10,2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) The setup references to non-existent builds (such as build 5019) is not notable and its more likely fake. Uncle Captain (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Why would Microsoft give a reference to a build that does not exist? XPSrv (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is just a range to update this version. Hanhan188 (talk) 3:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) So... that 5223 was not. 2001:f90:40c0:a072:3944:c482:71be:47de 9:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC+8)
 * 2) Per Mbczadgjliqetup. Those builds were compiled by Microsoft; just not available yet. Otherwise that would be saying client 4028 doesn't exist because it's mentioned in build 4039 - 4093 setup and hasn't leaked yet. BF10 (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Nara Insider (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) They're not fake. Especially 5019 given that Windows Vista build 5048 has a document listing various bugs that will occur during an upgrade when using builds 5019 or higher. Xeno (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "1. OS being upgraded is a build lower than 5019" 2001:F90:40C0:A072:8DE7:26:2517:B3F2 00:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

10.0.18200.png
this screenshot is looking like appxmanifest.xml a bit (minversion). We don't upload screenshots with MinVersion value which appears in every appxmanifest.xml. who agree with me? - Faynti 11:53 (UTC), 03.07.2022


 * Nobody is responding, huh? - Faynti 11:13 (UTC), 04.07.2022