BetaWiki:Articles for deletion

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

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)
 * 6) I agree. 22621's updates will have moments functions locked via velocity and they can't be categorised into moments, thus far they aren't as notable as their Moment counterparts (22622.xxx and 22623.xxx) which are rolled out and more notable. Also some builds that are rolled to everyone with barely any new changes should also be removd from Win11 22H2 page. MicrosoftRTX2080 (talk) 15:17, 15 October 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.
 * It's not getting move to Hall of Shame. Hall of Shame is for terrible articles. 16:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Maybe. - 138.43.105.160 18:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposed deletion is on that page now. 16:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't put proposed deletion on pages that are already discussed here. -- 16:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If this AfD goes through, then I might open up another AfD for other non-notable builds, like Windows 10 build 18870. 18:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Terminal pages should have the QD as you've shown as they have already been dealt with and have just been missed during the initial cleanup. Xeno (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 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
 * 2) As said, you can edit the   and   files.

Oppose

 * 1) 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)
 * 1) No. 149.7.35.154 21:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One "no" word won't change the fate of that page. 09:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What NaraInsider1694 said. 138.43.105.160 13:13, 1 November 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 notification 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. It does not have much information: no compile date, and full buildtag - it just , no branches like  . Also, it does not notable either. -- 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)
 * 7) Most non-major Windows 11 (original release) updates are not notable.
 * No, it will still be notable if it contains a notable feature (ex: Search Highlights and revamped search in 22000.776) -- 05:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 13:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If it had another notable change, it would have been kept. But as article quality is not good and the other change in the taskbar the build gave is also not notable (The different Search Button treatments), it should not be kept. HM100 (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It does have another change that I found. User:SpringTime

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).
 * A build that adds just one simple change is not notable. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 14:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My mom's new computer used to run build 22000.1042... 138.43.105.160 13:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

File:LM7-Desktop.jpeg
Low quality, in JPEG, most likely taken from the internet.

Support

 * 1) Sporb (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Inadequate resolution (400 x 300), lossy JPEG, agreed.  05:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) NaraInsider1694 (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Yeah, that image can definitely be deleted.

Windows XP Media Center Edition build 2710.2636
Classic example of what we don't want, moved to the Hall of Shame. -Lucas Brooks (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Follows the same old Windows X build Y is a build of Windows X. Also has been blanked by the author in attempt to cover up how short the article is or remove the deletion notice --Sporb (🏠U - 🗣️T - ✏️C - 📧E) 23:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Sporb (🏠U - 🗣️T - ✏️C - 📧E) 23:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose
== Windows 10/11 build 17701, 18987, 19003, 19016, 22000.63 in Microsoft Store == this Microsoft Store App screenshots version used the  no any sense. TedezaRize (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) TedezaRize (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) NaraInsider1694 (talk) 03:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Yeah, like what happened to builds 18200, 18943, and 19500. Plus, was originally a proposed deletion.

Windows 10 Build 10240.16834.amdfre.fbl eeap.150808-1859
Lucas Brooks deleted this page. TedezaRize (talk) 3:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

These two Windows 10 build 10240.16834 or Windows 10 build 10240 (fbl_eeap) in articles have been Ryuzaki protected, don't know if the user EntamEntam to create this page. TedezaRize (talk) 3:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) TedezaRize (talk) 3:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Windows 10 build 10064 (fbl_kpg)
This page should be deleted as stock registry hives builds don't have accurate compilation dates. 149.19.32.45 18:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)