BetaWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 1

Windows 95 build 21i

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Kept. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 09:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that the Windows 95 build 21i page should be deleted, as the screenshot is only a photoshop and not a real modified build. ToMi (talk | contribs) 15:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I think build 26 should be removed too, because its in a similar vein to build 21i. BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
The guidelines make no distinction between fake builds and fake screenshots, so this argument is pointless. Furthermore, we'd have to delete all the other fake screenshot articles too, which would make the fake tag rather useless (as there's very few actual fake builds as opposed to just screenshots). Overdoze (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
The guidelines also require that the fake build has the potential to confuse people about its legitimacy. The page had 300 hits in June for whatever reason, it's within the top 10% visited pages on the wiki, so it definitely meets that requirement. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 09:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Overdoze (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 09:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. Jajan131 (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  4. 86.4.119.242 14:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  5. Ovctvct (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  6. JordenLang (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Support

  1. ToMi (talk | contribs) 15:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Windows 8 builds 7914, 7916, 7920 and 7926

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted, screenshots were kept. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 09:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think these four pages should be deleted, as these four builds are known only from file versions and buildlists, both of them untrustworthy. BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Deleted. Didn't delete the screenshots themselves, as I think they are worth keeping for the while. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 08:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Support

  1. BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. ToMi (talk | contribs) 16:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Windows 8 build 7962

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 09:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think that this page should be deleted because that's just 7963, which is already leaked. Applegame12345i (talk)

i moved the fbl srv wdmacxml page to make it just windows 8 build 7962. BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Support

  1. Applegame12345i (talk)
  2. BenjiMadden7850 (talk)
  3. Scamdisk (talk)
  4. AClear (talk)
  5. Onmp314 (talk)
  6. ToMi (talk)
  7. Chance (talk)

Windows 8 builds 8514 and 8516

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 09:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

These two pages are very similar to these four: 7914, 7916, 7920 and 7926, because these two are file versions and a WinJS string. So it should be deleted because its not notable anymore. BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

But files in 7914, 7916, 7920 and 7926 are not confirmed, while files in 8514 and 8526 are confirmed and can prove these builds exist.--GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 07:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
but these are just file versions/random buildstrings from the windows store, which are absoutely USELESS! We have NO proper screenshots whatsoever of any of these builds (like most WinJS builds), which is why i put the pages up for deletion. BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
They certainly are not useless, they can show the progress of development at a finer level than leaked/confirmed builds. They just are not good article material. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 08:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Support

  1. BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 07:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  2. Onmp314 (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
  3. ToMi (talk | contribs) 08:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Native Shell

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 12:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Native Shell is neither notable, nor a popular community tool. To be honest, it is out of scope for this wiki. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 08:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it. The article is about useful tool and someone will want to read about it, so I don't think that it will be unused page. It is also interesting that those not notable file version build pages are standing there all the time and no one has deleted them yet, but this useful page was immediately marked for deletion because it is "out of project scope" and I don't think it is. There is ton of unused pages which are out of project scope. ToMi (talk | contribs) 08:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The guidelines make no provision about "useful tools". Native Shell is not a notable application, as it hasn't been covered by press. It is not by any means a popular tool that aids in researching old software either. Furthermore, the information in the article is at the very least misleading, as if the author didn't really understand what Native Shell even does and how it works. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 09:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. ToMi (talk | contribs) 08:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. Onmp314 (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. TipzTeam (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2020 (HKT)

Support

  1. Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 08:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Windows 8 build 8331 (winmain)

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Kept. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 11:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The Windows 8 build 8331 (winmain) page should be deleted, as it is only WinJS buildtag and it is also based on a fake sceenshot. ToMi (talk | contribs) 08:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Keeping WinJS references can turn out to be useful down the line if one day we have a new screenshot/leak and we need to confirm the build string is genuine. Having a list of such strings which are confirmed (because it is from Microsoft) also gives an insight into timelines, build jumps and more information. Maybe having a page dedicated to each string is a bit extreme, but having a page with just a list of them could be a good compromise. Gus33000 (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 09:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
So how you decided? ToMi (talk | contribs) 14:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Xeno (talk | contribs) 22:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. ToMi (talk | contribs) 08:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. Norman (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Windows Longhorn build 4048 (Lab02)

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted as QD. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 09:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The Windows Longhorn build 4048 (Lab02) page should be deleted, as it is only a mislabel and there isn't any other source. ToMi (talk | contribs) 08:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

That one was worth a QD. Deleted. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 09:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Support

  1. ToMi (talk | contribs) 08:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Windows 8.1 build 9428

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Kept. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 11:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

similar reason to windows 8 build 8331 winmain, based on winjs string and fake screenshot. Norman (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Covered in press (winbeta/onmsft), therefore notable. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 09:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
But this screenshot should be deleted. ToMi (talk | contribs) 09:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
That screenshot came from the winbeta article. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 09:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I think the screenshot should be deleted, but the whole page shouldn't. --GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 09:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. Xeno (talk | contribs) 22:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. Norman (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Windows XP build 2465 (main)

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Kept. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 11:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I think that the Windows XP build 2465 (main) page should be deleted, as it is only a build string which was found in a step-by-step interactive training program and there is no other source for this build. ToMi (talk | contribs) 10:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Norman (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  2. Xeno (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Found various other builds through various languages of Step By Step Interactive trainings.

Support

  1. ToMi (talk | contribs) 10:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

X/Window Manager

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 12:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

i think this page should be deleted, as i think its out of project scope (this is a window manager, and i dont think we cover windowing systems like x). Also this is a protocol and we dont cover protocols. BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Support

  1. BenjiMadden7850 (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. ToMi (talk | contribs) 13:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Windows 8 build 9220

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

I think this page should be deleted. There is only an unconfirmed screenshot of this build with custom wallpaper. No evidence could prove it's real. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Was that build proven to be fake? No. And that it has custom wallpaper is not a reason to delete it. ToMi (talk | contribs) 09:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Only the build number is shown in this screenshot, not build string. In early beta versions of Windows such as 7700 and 9299 the build number is shown in a form of a string. I think this could prove the screenshot isn't real. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
This person's profile suggested that he/she was not a Microsoft employee but most probably in some kind of hardware/software company that can receive pre-release builds from Microsoft for testing. Take win8_gdr_soc_xxxx as example, only having build number visible cannot directly lead to the conclusion of "fake build". -CI611 (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
That guy also claimed to have some ridiculous Windows 9 build number. I doubt a legitimate source would feel the need to do that. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 19:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
This guy once posted a fake build whose build number is even after Windows 8.1 (9600). GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. ToMi (talk | contribs) 09:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. CI611 (talk) 15:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Support

  1. Jonas Suder | The OS enthusiast (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Windows 8 build 7930

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 11:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

i think it was my mistake to create this page. The buildstring only comes from a buildlist (see references in the article) and the screenshot could be from ANY build in the 79xx range. Jonas Suder | The OS enthusiast (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Support

  1. Jonas Suder | The OS enthusiast (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  2. ToMi (talk | contribs) 09:20, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  3. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  4. SMB99thx (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Windows 10 build 20203 (rs apps)

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Kept. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 12:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Considering that the source tweet itself has been deleted, the page has practically been reduced to "once upon a time, there was a tweet about this build by an MS employee, which has since then been deleted" with no proof whatsoever. Is it worth keeping such pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryuzaki (talk • contribs)

Would this be enough: http://web.archive.org/web/20200901172043/https://twitter.com/the_m4a/status/1300845861795033088? I have opposed for now as there is proof in Wayback Machine's archives TheMinecraftHunter (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. TheMinecraftHunter (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Jonas Suder | The OS enthusiast (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. NotCory (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Ferito (talk | contribs) 14:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. Well, if the post was archived, it can be kept, as there are many other builds that were mentioned in Twitter posts listed on this wiki. ToMi (talk | contribs) 13:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Support

  1. Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 17:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Jonas Suder | The OS enthusiast (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. ToMi (talk | contribs) 17:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Ferito (talk | contribs) 22:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Minecraft

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 17:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

There's already heavy amounts of documentation on the official wiki. With this, it's essentially pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by jbaitker12 (talk • contribs)

We already have several pages about games and I don't see any reason to delete them. Of course, I'm for keeping this page. ToMi (talk | contribs) 09:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
The game wikis we are referring to will most likely have more information than the game articles here, as the main focus of this wiki are beta versions of OSes, though given from the articles the wiki has, it might as well be The Collection Book wiki. M0ntenegro (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The main foucs of this wiki is software history, not os history. So i think this article should be kept, because of beta verisons. If minecraft had no beta verisons, then i think this article should be deleted, or i wouldnt create it. Orangera1n (talk | contribs)
1) Operating Systems are technically software. 2) The Minecraft wiki has lots more information about the beta versions, and have people who care more about Minecraft beta versions. M0ntenegro (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Some people are closer the betaarchive and betawiki and want to know about Minecraft betas. Orangera1n

Oppose

  1. ToMi (talk | contribs) 15:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Orangera1n (talk | contribs) 15:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC) There are beta versions of Minecraft (both unleaked and leaked) so I think this page should be kept, If there were no verified betas, then we would delete this.
  3. Chance (talk | contribs) 0:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC) There's already a Brawl Stars wiki, so why bother have that page?
  4. PF94 (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC) The article is already getting improved, it'd be pointless if the article was deleted.

Support

  1. jbaitker12 (talk | contribs) 10:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Jonas Suder (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. PF94 (talk) 23:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. TipzTeam (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2020 (HKT)
  5. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. Meow (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC) The Brawl Stars page should also be deleted. It also has a wiki.
  7. M0ntenegro (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  8. Xeno (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  9. ENDER1355 (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

File:2239 Desktop.png

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

BH2012's fake, should be deleted.

BTW, I should also notice there are many redirects with typos which should be deleted. ToMi (talk | contribs) 15:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Support

  1. ToMi (talk | contribs) 15:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Jonas Suder (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

The page does not exist -Meow (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Because it was already deleted. ToMi (talk | contribs) 14:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Windows XP build 2600.1041

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 13:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The build tag comes from an IE6 SP1 build and there is no other source that this build ever existed. ToMi (talk | contribs) 09:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

IE6 shared Windows build tags, however, this one is just a regular update for sure. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 13:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Support

  1. ToMi (talk | contribs) 09:58, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  2. Jonas Suder (talk) 10:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  3. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
  4. Same goes for 1089. —Winins (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Windows XP build 2600.2144

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Kept, this is an actual SP build. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 11:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC) --- Same as 2600.1041 and 2600.1089, the build tag comes from IE6 and Windows Media Player. There is no screenshot of the build itself. ToMi (talk | contribs) 18:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Support

  1. ToMi (talk | contribs) 18:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. Orangera1n (talk | 23:12, 11, November 2020. No real evidence that this build exists.
  3. Xeno (talk | contribs) 22:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Windows XP build 2467

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 11:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This is very much a fake build (its just a server build masked as a professional sku one). The setup pic is a dead giveaway:

2467 "professional"

2469 professional

On the screenshots themselves, theres a lot of clues as well to be certain that this is a just a server build masquerading as a professional sku version. click here if any of you wanna investigate the images Jonas Suder (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the build from the XP page a few days ago. I see no reason to keep it there. Xeno (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Support

  1. Jonas Suder (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. For reference, here's the 2467 Server setup, which is exactly the same. Also compare the start menu. - NotCory (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. ToMi (talk | contribs) 09:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  4. Xeno (talk | contribs) 15:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  5. MicrosoftWindows (talk | contribs) 18:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Watch Dogs and Destiny

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 11:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

The article is worded similarly, but not the same as the Wikipedia article, strangely enough. This might be also a good opportunity to revive the discussion whether we even want game content on this wiki, while there are countless wiki about games in general and also about the specific games themselves. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 19:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the idea of having games on the wiki, IMO there's other wikis suited for covering games such as The Cutting Room Floor. If anything, this wiki should only cover at best some of the games installed in Windows/macOS by default. BF10 (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Frankly, we should even drop everything that's not Windows. We should concentrate our efforts on what we do the best, which is Windows and its components. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 21:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Thing is do you know any better wiki for storing macOS betas or Linux betas (and no, any wiki on FANDOM is not ideal)? BF10 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
the sitituation with macos, linux, ios and android is unlike windows, most beta builds of these oses arent available for download anymore unlike windows. Most linux builds are either very hard to find or are just simply lost. As for macos, macos gets a little more difficult if you wanna do certain builds. Most of these builds arent available to download anymore. As for ios and android, you need an old device or iphone to do those versions. And betawiki is more closely alligned with betaarchive than tcrf... so remove all the games... tcrf and betaarchive are NOTHING alike. Jonas Suder (talk) 23:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
macOS and Linux content on this wiki is about as good as no content at all. I don't think we even have any Linux beta stuff. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 23:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
yeah because linux beta stuff is VERY hard to find and most of it was deleted a long time ago. So good luck tryna do ubuntu and fedora etc pre release builds. and as for macos, most of it is no longer available anymore (only select builds are available for dl) Jonas Suder (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I get that, but where could such content go for future reference? Is there any particular wiki or knowledge base that can dump what there is (since DP1-4 have some content that might be worth moving elsewhere) BF10 (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
if anything, i think betawiki should be split into two, one part focusing on windows and its components, and the other on macOS, linux, and other oses Jonas Suder (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry but the idea of removing everything that is not focused to Windows isn't really good idea. I definitely agree with BF10, there aren't any other normal wikis focusd on Linux or macOS stuff. BetaWiki is about betas of all OSes (including macOS, Linux, OS/2). If it will be only about Windows, then it can be renamed to "WinWiki" instead of "BetaWiki". ToMi (talk | contribs) 07:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, we should only keep games, and anything Else for that matter that have beta versions. The reason why I would like the Minecraft article to be kept, is because that game has verified beta versions. These, however, do not. Until a beta verison is discovered, we shouldn’t keep these articles. User:Orangera1n
The Minecraft wiki on Gamepedia already has more detail than the Minecraft articles we have here will probably ever have. And as well, most people will go to the Minecraft wiki to look at beta versions of Minecraft, they most likely won't come here. M0ntenegro (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
M0ntenegro does have a point about the minecraft article. I think that that article should be kept. Along with any other game that has betas, people who like windows betas might want to explore game betas. These dont have betas.

Orangera1n

Oppose

Support

  1. Jonas Suder (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  2. ToMi (talk | contribs) 19:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  3. BF10 (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  4. Orangera1n (talk | There are beta versions of destiny 2, so I think that we should keep that, as for watch dogs, we should delete that because there isn’t any beta versions known.
  5. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC) | Unless there were betas of these games leaked, these pages are unnecessary.
  6. M0ntenegro (talk) 14:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  7. Socks (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  8. Xeno (talk) With Minecraft deleted, I feel other games should follow suit. 20:38, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Windows Server build 18922

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Kept. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 00:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

this build was apparently released as a docker hub container image, but its now lost. The only other evidence of its existence is this, which counts as a build list. So i think this page should be deleted. Jonas Suder (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The "only other evidence" is already lost too. It 403s. Ferito (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
These links are apparently time limited, so the only other reference is back up. I still think this page should be removed. In fact, theres only two older docker hub builds that can still be obtained. Builds 17655 and 17661, which can be found on betaarchives ftp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas Suder (talk • contribs)
Referring to docker image list and docker hub, this file is still available on the mcr server, the best way to download is through docker pull mcr.microsoft.com/windows/servercore/insider:10.0.18922.1000 and maybe you can upload the file you just downloaded. -CI611 (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
i didnt know it was still up. Thx for the info Jonas Suder (talk) 04:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Me neither, so I don't see anything bad on keeping the page now Ferito (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Jonas Suder (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Ferito (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Xeno (talk) Link is still valid. 21:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. Jonas Suder (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Ferito (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

F1 2020

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 11:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a game that does not have any betas. The article was first made by a guy who got banned on this wiki 2 times. -PF94 (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Support

  1. ToMi (talk | contribs) 20:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Jonas Suder (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. Orangera1n 4:01 UTC. 27 December 2020. No verified betas of this game, in my opinion, we should focus on betas, Minecraft is fine in my opinion because it has betas, but this has no verified betas. That’s why I think it should be deleted.
  4. DrakonchikUA (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Xeno (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  6. Socks (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  7. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  8. PF94 (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Windows 8 build 8128 (winmain)

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

No source, deleted. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 11:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

This build has very little info, no proof of its existence apart from buildlists, the picture looks like it was modified with custom settings and most of the tag is censored. Jonas Suder (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

Support

  1. Jonas Suder (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  2. Cirrubec (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  3. >ToMi (talk | contribs) 15:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Xeno (talk) 04:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

File:20H2_TaskbarCpl.png

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

This picture reflects a leftover in Windows 10's RTM, but not on the exact build. I already replaced it, though, and is Media:Win10RTM_SystrayCpl.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferito (talk • contribs)

File:Error with explorer.jpg

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

There is a better quality version available of the aforementioned image here. Pivotman319 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

But on this image the error code is different that the one from my screenshot. ToMi (talk | contribs) 17:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. ToMi (talk | contribs) 17:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. Jonas Suder (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Windows 8 build 8234

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 11:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no source for the build tag, and that it "might be real". The screenshot is a visible fake. ToMi (talk | contribs) 11:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

i found the source for the build tag. Its unfortunately msbuilds, which isnt exactly realiable Jonas Suder (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
We should keep it as a fake build to remind others, especially build newers.GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
There is no reason to keep this, the screnshot is a visible fake and the build tag source is not reliable, as Jonas said. ToMi (talk | contribs) 08:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. ToMi (talk | contribs) 11:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Jonas Suder (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  3. ThatRandomToast (talk) 04:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  4. Socks (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  5. Xeno (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

File:MicrosoftPlus95-304-MediaContents.jpg

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

The file has been taken in the lossy JPEG format, and there is no way how it can be used. ToMi (talk | contribs) 14:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Support

  1. ToMi (talk | contribs) 14:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Windows 10 build 14340

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Kept. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 11:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no source for the image. In the current state the article doesn't have much information and should better be deleted. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 12:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

i found a screenshot of it on betaworld wiki Norman (talk) 12:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, right. The article doesn't have much more info either. IMHO a screenshot of a watermark is no better than a build list mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryuzaki (talk • contribs)
The screenshot could be from a French forum, and here's the link, I won't make more comment on this since the ss's authenticity cannot be confirmed. CI611 (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Norman (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. There are many other things that should be deleted. ToMi (talk | contribs) 14:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Well you would delete the entire wiki in the matter of hours before restoring it the next day from what I can see on BA Wiki... Any actual argument for keeping the page? --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs)
I mean the dozens of photos in QD which are completely useless, or requested for deletion by their uploaders. And please don't explain my deletion fetish there, thank you.

BTW, in criterias for QD, "redundant files" are present. ToMi (talk | contribs) 10:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Redundant as in duplicate. Otherwise it should be discussed. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 11:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 12:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  2. Xeno (talk) While there is a chance that this is legit, it is super easy to fake a buildtag in the registry. 20:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://betawiki.net/index.php?title=BetaWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_1&oldid=268003"