BetaWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 3

Early Chicago fakes

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted on 25 December 2021 BF10 (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

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. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 22:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

these fakes should've been deleted a long time ago. MikeShinoda2001 (Norman) 22:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
No, they really don't have the potential, because of the taskbar style present in the images. ToMi (talk | contribs) 18:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
And "Cougar" 28 build? Is only a WfW 3.11 modified. --Vannura (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

One thing to take note of was that build 21i was previously requested to be deleted, but was opposed due to the page having hits from other users, meaning that their questionability was dubious enough to be notable. I think they should be reevaluated and if the results show that they aren't as popular as they were back then, they can be removed. BF10 (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. Gamerappa (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. MikeShinoda2001 (Norman) 22:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Jurta (talk • contribs) 22:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. As partially mentioned by Ryu, these aren't notable fakes. I've not seen anyone in some time try to pass these off as genuine. Xeno (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. ToMi (talk | contribs) 18:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. Jajan131 (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. WinInsider (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  8. 创世的蔷薇 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  9. Christian230102 (talk) 17:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  10. ヾ(•ω•`)o Hi. I'm SamCool939. (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  11. Hanhan188 (talk) 8:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  12. In Windows 95 Pre-Milestone 4 have more fake builds than confirmed builds. --Vannura (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  13. BF10 (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  14. AIntrestingGuy (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  15. Blue Horizon (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Build 47 - Jajan131 (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    build 47 is only mentioned in an old betaarchive thread from 2009. -Gamerappa (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    Build 47 is mentioned in TASKMAN.EXE, anyway, I prefer to keep it as a precaution but unconfirmed... Note, there are other executables where there are different build numbers but they match the same suite of past Windows Chicago build numbers but they are unconfirmed too, after all.... I already made a comment about this in April 2014 on BetaArchive ! - Jajan131 (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    Good point, but still, file versions are not notable. ToMi (talk | contribs) 17:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    A single file version for a build isn't notable. BF10 (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I find these builds funny, and enjoy reading the pages and looking at the pictures. daemonspudguy (talk)

File:Win8-801-.png

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted on 11 December 2021 BF10 (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

There's no source on this image and it potentially could be fake. Xeno (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It can be either Windows 8 build 8011 or Windows 8 build 8014, which was already leaked. ToMi (talk | contribs) 17:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I think is Windows 8 build 8011, because the 8014 number position build name don't match, but the 8011 position fits. --Vannura (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
That would make sense. ToMi (talk | contribs) 16:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it's better before to make a consensus, talk to User:Yue Ling, if he knows where he found this image, because he was the one who sent this image. (I already asked him.) --Vannura (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The aforementioned user is now inactive, so don't expect them to give a consensus. Either way, the image is now unused so no point to continue with this. No matter if it is 8011 or not, too much material is blocked out to give a reliable guess. BF10 (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. Xeno (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. ToMi (talk | contribs) 18:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Even if it's known what build this screenshot is from, most of the watermark is blanked so it's practically useless. Jurta (talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. MikeShinoda2001 (Norman) 21:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. 创世的蔷薇 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. ヾ(•ω•`)o Hi. I'm SamCool939. (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. --Vannura (talk) 21:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC) I think i found that version, probably this build is Windows 8 build 8011.

Windows Server 2016 build 10513

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Withdrawn by nominator. BF10 (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

With some fake builds, in the AfD will deleted that fake build, but this page was recreating. It looks like it, but these are still just random files from that build, so i still think the article should go away. --我是王牌66 (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. It's a different source lol. Xeno (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. And the source that was mentioned in the page was Channel 9. WinInsider (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. MikeShinoda2001 (Norman) 02:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. 我是王牌66 (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC) has no oppose and also has no support.
  5. The source isn't from some file, it's from a video. Jurta (talk • contribs) 07:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. SeregaWin555 (talk) 05:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. ヾ(•ω•`)o Hi. I'm SamCool939. (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

Windows Longhorn build 3708

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted on 11 December 2021 BF10 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

A new user account objected to the proposed deletion of this article without any explanation, so I am putting this under discussion. Original explanation for the deletion proposal from the talk page:

On 25 August 2007, BetaArchive user Namronia posted screenshots from various Windows builds, including that supposed screenshot for 3708: https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=24708#p24708

Right, that's likely its origin. Though, I discovered another thing that really shook my head. Almost 2 months prior on 30 June, that exact same user posted another image of a properties dialog for IDWLOG - which looks the same as in that 3708 screenshot, except cropped: https://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=19612#p19612

Notice, however, that latter screenshot has "3720" for its build number, yet it retains the same compile string as the properties dialog for the former screenshot - meaning the images were edited to report a different build number. On top of all that, Namronia states in their earlier post that they "don't know the running os", which really struck me as odd seeing as he knew what the other versions were in the later post. It's possible he just researched more during those 2 months, though I thought I'd bring that up. Overall, that only increases my skepticism weather the 3708 screenshot is real, never mind the build itself. I'll let you come to your conclusions on this, as I'd like to know what I said should mean the article be removed, labeled as fake, or stay as is (with the context I provided be added to said article). --Blue Horizon (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. From a quick reverse image search I can only see this particular screenshot being only documented on some weird build lists, BetaWiki and I can't believe it's not BetaWiki, so I am in favor of the deletion. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 20:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. Yeah, this build barely has any notability surrounding it, I don't see a real reason to keep this. Jurta (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. 3708's screenshot does not sit right with me. The taskbar is too similar to build 3683's and I am struggling to find a reason why Microsoft would ditch build 3706's taskbar only to revert it back in build 3713. I also noticed that the 3 confirmed 37xx builds do not contain IDWLOG.EXE whereas 3683 and 4001 do (Both builds IDWLOG.EXE is 61KB). It's not to say that 3708 is an outlier, my confidence in the build containing said file remains very low. IDWLOG.EXE has been modified as the date modified does not match up with the build's compile date, whereas if it was genuine, it would match. Xeno (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. MikeShinoda2001 (Norman) 22:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  5. I'm pretty sure that this build might be a modified build 3683, and build 3708 is not notable and it's more likely fake. Bubblebeam (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  6. ToMi (talk | contribs) 18:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  7. SeregaWin555 (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  8. Blue Horizon (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  9. WinInsider (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  10. Christian230102 (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  11. Chrmmice (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  12. ヾ(•ω•`)o Hi. I'm SamCool939. (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  13. Not notable fake. BF10 (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

iOS 16

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Making a discussion here as the prod template was actually removed a couple of times previously. It's pretty obvious that we shouldn't have articles based around pure speculation as there isn't a reliable source to back this most of the time. Jurta (talk • contribs) 18:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Deleted by Ryuzaki on 17 September 2021 Xeno (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. Jurta (talk • contribs) 18:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. MikeShinoda2001 (Norman) 18:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. ToMi (talk | contribs) 18:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. SeregaWin555 (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. 创世的蔷薇 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC) in Sogou Baike, up to the OS release/announce date's last year's May, then will create a page equiped source. Because there is a very reliable source to prove Apple's plan, so it is not a fantasy. Like in iOS 15, on 2020-11-03, an IP user created the page, but it has no delete discussion before 2021-06-07 (WWDC 2021 holding date).
Nobody denies that iOS 16 would eventually be released, but right now any information about it is pure speculation, aside from that it will replace iOS 15. It's way too early to have an article about it. Also just because we had a useless stub for iOS 15 does not mean we have to have it this time. We are not Sogou Baike either, so their practice is quite irrelevant here. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 12:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Windows 11 build 22000.37

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Withdrawn by nominator. BF10 (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

This is just a file version page, which are not notable, regardless if the core system files have this revision number. Because all other file version pages are gone, this one should go too. MikeShinoda2001 (Norman) 01:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

#MikeShinoda2001 (Norman) 01:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. more than one file with this version exists, which makes it notable afaik Orbitron (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. ❌ Oppose; BW:NOTABLE states that a build that is referenced in more than one file version is considered of importance to the wiki. - pivotman319 (📫) 01:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. The notable guidelines list file versions as acceptable, if the build has been mentioned in more than one. And the added weight of core system files containing this build/revision leads me to oppose this decision. Also if 22000.37 is being put up for deletion, the same case could be made about Windows 11 build 22000.20 which is just MinVersionTested for the store and Web Experience. Xeno (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. Oh i thought file versions were not notable if they were in multiple files. I made a mistake putting 22000.37 up for afd MikeShinoda2001 (Norman) 02:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Vista5552.PNG (redirect)

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted on 11 December 2021 BF10 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I initially put a PROD on it, but ToMi claims that "admins would keep it since there's nothing wrong with it", even though the redirect is only useful on Caveria's long-abandonned "Demo Gallery" page, so now there might be an actual debate over a redirect... what. -Gamerappa (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I haven't said there must be a debate, so read. I redirected it again to not keep it as broken, and that admin may want to keep the file. ToMi (talk | contribs) 18:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
it doesn't matter if caveria's page gets broken, as it shows my build 5552 demo instead of caveria's deleted build 5552 demo. caveria's 5552 demo got deleted because of copyright infringement (club penguin). -Gamerappa (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I mean't broken redir... eh doesn't matter. ToMi (talk | contribs) 19:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The original image that was on Caveria's gallery was deleted for custom graphics. Nothing of value was lost. BF10 (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. It's a useless redirect that would only affect an inactive user. Xeno (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. I doubt Caveria would even care about the redirect being deleted since they left this wiki a while back, and if they do end up coming back then they can just replace the link, so there's no reason for this redirect to exist. Jurta (talk • contribs) 18:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  3. Obviously. ToMi (talk | contribs) 18:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  4. This file is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhorn98 (talk • contribs)

Oppose

OS/2 Warp 4 build 9.016

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Page changed to a redirect to main build page. BF10 (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Totally useless page, and its a mislable of 9.012 Everytab

Support

  1. Longhorn98(Talk about Longhorn98)
  2. MikeShinoda2001 (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  3. ヾ(•ω•`)o Hi. I'm SamCool939. (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  4. This page "OS/2 Warp 4 build 9.016" should be deleted as soon as possible. Bubblebeam (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  5. Move information about mislabels to main build page. BF10 (talk) 00:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Windows 8 build 7927 (fbl_srv)

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Withdrawn by nominator. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 08:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems like the person that added this build to the list didn't provide any more context apart from one file version, so it would make sense to delete it. Blue Horizon 17:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Please don't remove the discussion once an article has been nominated. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 08:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. Guidelines mention that a string must be mentioned in more than 1 file. Xeno (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. There are multiple files Orangera1n (Talk | contribs) 13:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Windows 95 build 28

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Page will be kept; withdrawn from banned user. BF10 (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this build can be delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longhorn98 (talk • contribs)

Support

  1. MikeShinoda2001 (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. No. Many people still thinks if Cougar is exist as a separate system, so this article shouldn't deleted for educational purposes. ヾ(•ω•`)o Hi. I'm SamCool939. (talk) 10:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  2. WinInsider (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  3. Even if the article does get taken down, there's always the possibility that someone will stumble upon a copy of it and presume its real, which is the point of having articles documenting franken-builds; to reduce confusion over its authenticity so as to not have false assumptions be repeated in the future. --Blue Horizon (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Windows 95 build 47

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted; see Chicago fake builds proposal. BF10 (talk) 00:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

While this is already mentioned in the Early Chicago builds thread on this page, it should be given a new section in order to focus on the fact that the edits I've made to the page show a bit of an issue.

Even if this build were real, the single shred of reliable evidence for this build's existence (the Task Manager build number) isn't enough for it to be considered notable.

EggplanteseRepublic (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

That is a problem that plagues most of the fake builds, since there are dozens of such build numbers in files from early builds. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 14:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://betawiki.net/index.php?title=BetaWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_3&oldid=268005"