BetaWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 4

Windows 10X build 20280

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Rejected, article kept. BF10 (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This page was originally put up as a prod but was removed and had been changed to an AfD discussion. Xeno (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what's wrong with the page in the first place? --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 17:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Only source for the build's existence seems to be one tweet by Zac Bowden Orbitron (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. MikeShinoda2001 (Norman) 17:40, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. I agree (Ilyes) 24 February 2022

Oppose

  1. I'm certain these builds do exist out there. Xeno (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  2. I think builds mentioned by one reliable source should count as unconfirmed. Orangera1n (Talk | contribs) 01:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  3. Zac's a reliable source, leave it up as unconfirmed. EggplanteseRepublic (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  4. It's best this stays unconfirmed in that case or unless someone is willing to find the "breaking bug in build 20279". BF10 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Windows 8 build 7992 (fbl_srv_wdacxml) and 7994

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Build 7992 page will be kept, build 7994 page will be deleted. BF10 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The builds only discloses one screenshot.The wallpaper is the same as before build 7989.I think it was changed by build 7978.Hanhan188(talk) 8:09,13 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. This wallpaper is removed in build 7989. That build along with 7994 are fake if the wallpaper is not a custom wallpaper that is set by user manually. Mbczadgjliqetup (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  2. One screenshot cannot say anything. Sources from BetaWorld should be carefully treated.--GT610 | Sorry for my poor English! (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  3. WinInsider (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  4. I agree since the old wallpaper means that this is a fake build. (Ilyes)
  5. For build 7994. Reverse image search reveals nothing on this build other than this wiki, and there is no source on the original image otherwise. Until the original archived source can be found, this build isn't notable enough to be kept for right now. The page was also previously deleted for being not notable as well. I will keep the image based on it, as there's no other major confirmations that the build might be fake other than the background. BF10 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Can't Windows system customize wallpaper? And although it is impossible to know the authenticity of this screenshot, why is it defined as a fake or modified? Chrmmice (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  2. I think is the fake wallpaper. Because the wallpaper is updated on build 7989. 2001:F90:40C0:8A97:60C5:4E94:2B49:A824 (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  3. For build 7992. The same thread included images from 8045, which is real and later released in 2020. This should be kept as unconfirmed since there's still a source of such. BF10 (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Windows Longhorn build 4020 (idx02.030430-2218)

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Converted to a redirect and will have the mislabel noted in the article. BF10 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This build is not notable for not having any screenshots, reference or something. So this page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.121.86.160 (talk • contribs)

Grabberslasher has been known for having direct contacts with MS since at least 2004, and he likely obtained this mislabeled build though the official labs. It could be a similar case to that 6001.16628 DVD where the wrong build string was printed on the disc (or ISO image) he obtained. As far as references go, Grabberslasher has been a reliable source of information for builds over the years. So in that regard, it does hold some weight in its credibility. --Blue Horizon (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. Yeah, this is just the wrong label for the already leaked 4020 build. This was proven almost 2 years ago... I suppose we don't need this article. Captainlinux8880 (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Well see, that's another problem; you keep saying it was already debunked in the past, yet provide no source or actual context to go alongside it. I've thoroughly checked that build string online prior to the article's creation, and came up empty. I *did* find that BetaArchive Wiki used this build string mistakenly for their screenshot descriptions, though that's not really proof in of itself. So if you could provide any source for your claim, that would be night and day compared to what I'm seeing now. --Blue Horizon (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Here, this is mislabeled file: https://archive.org/details/6.0.4020.idx02.030430-2218

Install it. And you make sure it's not 030430-2218. This 030507-1155, which we already have. Captainlinux8880 (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the uploader just didn't know any better and copy pasted the build string from Grabberslasher's release thread, even though the directory name retains the string of the actual build. Even so, this in itself doesn't confirm that the aforementioned build string is invalid. Just the fact the build string was brought up by someone who had close contacts with people from Microsoft labs already has more notability than some out of context and unconfirmed screenshots from old (and defunct) websites. --Blue Horizon (talk) 10:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  1. I will be converting the aforementioned page into a redirect and providing information based on the mislabel, as this only seem to apply to the WinPE and the installed build having different timetags on the buildtag. 00:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Windows 1.0 Final Beta Release

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Rejected, article kept. BF10 (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This page has been around for a while, and from looking at the screenshots, anyone with prior knowledge is able to quickly spot inconsistencies with them. Plus, there aren't any other sources attached to who created the screenshots, nor any results online from doing reverse image searching. With that in mind, I am in favor for its deletion. --Blue Horizon (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

  1. MikeShinoda2001 (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  2. This article should either be deleted or moved to the Hall of Shame. Bubblebeam (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
  3. Blue Horizon (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Overdoze (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC): This is one of the older fakes I believe are worth preserving for historical reasons.
If it must be kept, it should likely go into the Hall of Shame category for future reference. Just having screenshots of a fake build can easily be disputed by someone who does hard research. The whole point of these lists is to keep the garbage out once general consensus of these builds reaches full verification. --Blue Horizon (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  1. Boa (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. it should stay.90.155.76.234 21:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  3. I agree with overdoze. 82.219.7.150 10:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
  4. --Vannura (talk) 01:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  5. I agree. 2001:F90:40C0:8A97:60C5:4E94:2B49:A824 (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Windows Longhorn build 4006

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted on 8 March 2022. BF10 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

the build page is not a notable unconfirmed build to be featured in the wiki, the only source is from a dead website which has no archived pages of the claimed build except for the screenshot and a mention of it existing. there isn't a lot of info about this build or anything remarkable about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeOrdinaryGuy (talk • contribs)

Support

  1. This is from an Air101 blog, who is a known faker in the beta community back in the day. Image reverse search leads to nothing but this wiki. Clearly not a notable fake, and will be one of the few times where this page is a candidate for quick deletion despite the votes otherwise. BF10 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. If the screenshot is fake, it certainly counts as being a notable fake as the screenshot is contemporary to pre-reset Longhorn development. That said, the public upload of 4005 didn't instantly prove it fake due to buildtag (in fact the buildtag looks plausible, and that would be the obvious place that would disprove a screenshot of this era); so in my opinion it should stay as unconfirmed. 89.243.142.119 21:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
  2. We shouldn't delete this page, even though there's no information at all from this build, we should still keep it, if we delete it and it never leaks in the future, then the tiny bit of information we had of this build will be gone. This build will only be known by its build tag (if the page gets deleted), and nothing else. --AClear (talk) 8:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Windows 11 build 25054 (rs_fun) and Windows 11 build 25054 (rs_prerelease)

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Articles deleted. - pivotman319 (📫) 15:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

None of these pages are notable as the only source to back these up is a single tweet, which is clearly not a proper source according to the guidelines. Jurta (talk • contribs) 12:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1. Per myself. Jurta (talk • contribs) 12:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. SeregaWin555 (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  3. Chrmmice (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  4. I won't use this username anymore. I'm going to change it to "XPSrv" on June 4th 2022 (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  5. While they are real, guidelines have to be kept to. Xeno (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  6. True, twitter isn't a reliable source. RealOrFake (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I think the builds are real. Let's see how the development goes next week, if no Copper builds come out in a while, I may support the deletion for now. (User:AlfCraft07) 18:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Just because you think these builds are real doesn't mean they deserve pages. Anyone could fake a build and say that they think that they're real, not saying that these builds in particular are fake. Plus, these builds are still not going to be notable when Copper builds start being released by Microsoft, mainly because 25054 is highly unlikely to be the build that gets released, especially the one from the rs_fun branch. Jurta (talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, nobody disputes the builds' legitimacy but rather the importance. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 11:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I can found windows 11 build 25054 (rs_prerelease) news web. 2001:F90:40C0:8A97:2C3C:F3E3:D89E:9CFA (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
All news articles on 25054 got their information from the tweet, so either way, the information is still coming from said tweet. Jurta (talk • contribs) 12:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Blue screen of death

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Rejected, article kept. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 19:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Reason: The system crash is not a Windows component and Betawiki is not a good source for crashes. And I recommend to move this to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyes (talk • contribs)

Support

Oppose

  1. I completely disagree here. A BSOD is very much a core part of Windows and is clearly component of the OS. Also, BSOD article is well written and shows the history of the crash screen so to me that invalidates the "low quality aricle" part of your statement. Side note, you can find BSOD codes in C:\Windows\System32\ntoskrnl.exe Xeno (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. I completely agree with Xeno, we are a Windows-Centered community after all. BSOD's also change over time throughout the betas. Orangera1n (Talk | contribs)
  3. I don't see any reason to delete this page. I won't use this username anymore. I'm going to change it to "XPSrv" on June 4th 2022 (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  4. It's a part of the user interface, as much as the Start menu or the taskbar is. Not quite sure what makes it a low quality article either. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 17:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  5. It's actually a core component of the Windows kernel. Also, the article is already highly descriptive and covers as much as it can. Do not use delete requests to delete pages you don't like. BF10 (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  6. I completely agree with BF10. We need this page because it is a core component of the Windows kernel. Bubblebeam (will be renamed to Uncle Captain on May 16) (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

winver

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Rejected, article kept. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 19:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

This article may be deleted like Boot Screen. The Version reporter is now out of date. This article may be mobed to Wikipedia even if there are winvers from Windows NT betas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilyes (talk • contribs)

Support

Oppose

  1. I completely disagree here. The article is high-quality, a Windows component that is displayed on most articles, and it has useful information and facts. Orangera1n (Talk | contribs) 15:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. So by your logic, this also means that most build pages aren't high quality either. Just because it consists mostly of a gallery doesn't mean it's low quality. Jurta (talk • contribs) 15:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  3. I don't see any reason to delete this page. I won't use this username anymore. I'm going to change it to "XPSrv" on June 4th 2022 (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  4. Might be worth actually considering if a page is worthy of an AfD... Especially since the page tells you how to invoke it rundll32 shell32,ShellAbout Idk about you but shell32 is a part of Windows. Xeno (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  5. Then improve it. The deletion policy is quite clear about this: "Deletion should be always used as a last resort option. If editing can improve the page, then this is the preferred course of action as opposed to deleting the page." --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 17:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  6. See my comment on the BSOD proposal; nope, we will not delete pages just because you don't like them. Nuff said. BF10 (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  7. Boa (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Half-Life 2 build 2915

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Moved to Hall of Shame; also see removing non-preinstalled game articles proposal. BF10 (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This article seems to be a candidate for the Hall of Shame, since it was very poorly edited. For example, it does not have a proper introduction text and links are not properly referenced. - 88.67.246.41 (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1. I agree. Boa (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  2. As proposer of removing non-preinstalled game articles. BF10 (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Windows 11 build 22451.1000

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Rejected; page will be kept. BF10 (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

This build has only 2 backgrounds.They're too small.I think it's no source. --Sakura2005 9:34(CST),6 March 2022

Support

Oppose

  1. Do you think it is meaningless just because it is small? Although we are not sure of its authenticity, there is no evidence to prove that it is false, so I think it should not be deleted. Chrmmice (Talk | contribs) 04:05, 06 March 2022 (UTC)
  2. 22451.1000 does exist, the only issue is the source itself isn't 100% reliable, which is why we've listed it as unconfirmed for the time being. I don't see the harm in the page existing. Xeno (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  3. Per Xeno, also there's at least a source on the page. Perhaps look next time? BF10 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm saying I don't feel that the source isn't 100% reliable. I am aware of the source being there. Xeno (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://betawiki.net/index.php?title=BetaWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_4&oldid=198989"