BetaWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 6

Windows 1.00

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

No arguments provided for deletion, therefore I close the discussion prematurely. Kept. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 12:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this page sould be kept or sould be deleted or moved to the Hall of Shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.3.169 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Support

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? -- —— Preceding SIGNED comment added by A150.png insomnia {{Ic fluent person 12 filled.svg talk • Ic fluent list 20 filled.svg contribs • Ic fluent mail 20 filled.svg email me }}

08:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  • NaraInsider1694 (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Nova22 (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

    • Windows 11 2022 Update updates

    Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

    22621.xxx builds deleted on 22 November 2022. BF10 (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

    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 -- —— Preceding SIGNED comment added by A150.png insomnia {{Ic fluent person 12 filled.svg talk • Ic fluent list 20 filled.svg contribs • Ic fluent mail 20 filled.svg email me }}

    10:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

  • 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)

    • Oppose

    Windows Server 2008 build 5383

    Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

    Deleted on 22 November 2022. BF10 (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

    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 compliance.ini or cversion.ini 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. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.43.105.160 (talk • contribs)
      It's not getting move to Hall of Shame. Hall of Shame is for terrible articles. Brennan1234567890 (Talk page | Contributions) 16:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
    4. Shouldn't need an AfD given how it's effectively the same source as cversion.ini 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. Brennan1234567890 (Talk page | Contributions) 16:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
      Don't put proposed deletion on pages that are already discussed here. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brennan1234567890 (talk • contribs) 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)
      It looks like you forgot to sign your comment here, Brennan1234567890. 138.43.105.18 14:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
    5. There is a similar discussion on Archive 5 -- —— Preceding SIGNED comment added by A150.png insomnia {{Ic fluent person 12 filled.svg talk • Ic fluent list 20 filled.svg contribs • Ic fluent mail 20 filled.svg email me }}

    15:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  • 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 -- —— Preceding SIGNED comment added by A150.png insomnia {{Ic fluent person 12 filled.svg talk • Ic fluent list 20 filled.svg contribs • Ic fluent mail 20 filled.svg email me }} 11:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree. Delete the Windows Server 2008 build 5383 page. Brennan1234567890 (talk) 11:06 EDT, 2 October 2022
  • As said, you can edit the compliance.ini and cversion.ini files. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.19.32.13 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
  • It's taking too long for this to be deleted. Also the page on this AfD is semi-protected. 138.43.105.18 14:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • This page is in the range of prohibited builds of the guidelines and thus this page is subject to QD for non-notability. BF10 (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

    • Oppose

    1. No. 94.121.91.29 (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
      what? -- —— Preceding SIGNED comment added by A150.png insomnia {{Ic fluent person 12 filled.svg talk • Ic fluent list 20 filled.svg contribs • Ic fluent mail 20 filled.svg email me }} 05:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
      As I said above, builds where their build number comes from a compliance.ini or cversion.ini file are NOT notable. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    2. No. 149.7.35.154 21:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
      One "no" word won't change the fate of that page. —— Preceding SIGNED comment added by A150.png insomnia {{Ic fluent person 12 filled.svg talk • Ic fluent list 20 filled.svg contribs • Ic fluent mail 20 filled.svg email me }} 09:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
      What NaraInsider1694 said. 138.43.105.160 13:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

    Windows 8.1 build 9458

    Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

    Also moved to HOS. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 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)

    Oppose

    Windows 8 build 7976

    Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

    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)
    2. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
    3. We should cancel this AfD immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.19.33.71 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
    4. Maybe this build uses the same mechanism of hiding confidential watermark as build 8102. -- —— Preceding SIGNED comment added by A150.png insomnia {{Ic fluent person 12 filled.svg talk • Ic fluent list 20 filled.svg contribs • Ic fluent mail 20 filled.svg email me }}

    14:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

    Windows Vista build 5353 re-AFD

    Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

    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)

    Support

    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

    Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

    Deleted on 22 November 2022. BF10 (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

    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
    One month later and that AfD isn't closed? Wow... 138.43.105.18 14:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

    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)
      It's better quality now... 138.43.105.18 14:17, 11 November 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 10.0.22000.1041, no branches like co_release(_svc_prodX). Also, it does not notable either. -- —— Preceding SIGNED comment added by A150.png insomnia {{Ic fluent person 12 filled.svg talk • Ic fluent list 20 filled.svg contribs • Ic fluent mail 20 filled.svg email me }}

    05:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  • A badge notification isn't noteworthy. Xeno (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • What Xeno said. Sporb (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Most non-major Windows 11 (original release) updates are not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.43.104.202 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    No, it will still be notable if it contains a notable feature (ex: Search Highlights and revamped search in 22000.776) -- —— Preceding SIGNED comment added by A150.png insomnia {{Ic fluent person 12 filled.svg talk • Ic fluent list 20 filled.svg contribs • Ic fluent mail 20 filled.svg email me }} 05:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed. - Faynti (Talk Contributions) 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)
      NexineTech2022: 138.43.105.160 I think you are getting off-topic.

    File:LM7-Desktop.jpeg

    Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

    Deleted by Pivotman319 on 18 November 2022. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

    Low quality, in JPEG, most likely taken from the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sporb (talk • contribs) 05:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

    Support

    1. Sporb (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    2. Inadequate resolution (400 x 300), lossy JPEG, agreed. —— Preceding SIGNED comment added by A150.png insomnia {{Ic fluent person 12 filled.svg talk • Ic fluent list 20 filled.svg contribs • Ic fluent mail 20 filled.svg email me }}

    05:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  • NaraInsider1694 (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that image can definitely be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.19.33.63 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
  • That image was uploaded by a partially blocked user. Brennan1234567890 (Talk page | Contributions) 23:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

    • Oppose

    Windows XP Media Center Edition build 2710.2636

    Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

    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

    Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

    Deleted on 7 December 2022. BF10 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

    this Microsoft Store App screenshots version used the AppxManifest.xml no any sense. TedezaRize (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

    1 page deleted, 4 to go. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

    Build 19003 page got deleted. 138.43.105.18 14:12, 11 November 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.19.33.16 (talk • contribs)

    Oppose

    Windows 10 Build 10240.16834.amdfre.fbl eeap.150808-1859

    Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

    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)

    Oppose

    Windows 10 build 10064 (fbl_kpg)

    Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

    Deleted on 7 December 2022. BF10 (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

    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)

    The only stock registry hives build with an accurate compilation date is Windows 10 build 9838 (fbl_refactor_coresys). Brennan1234567890 (Talk page | Contributions) 18:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

    Support

    1. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
    2. Pivotman319 deleted stock registry hives builds. This one should be deleted too. 149.19.32.77 13:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
    3. Agreed. Brennan1234567890 (Talk page | Contributions) 23:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

    Oppose

    Windows 8.1 build 9421, Windows 10 build 10567, and Windows 10 build 10058 (fbl_outlook)

    Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

    Deleted on 7 December 2022. BF10 (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

    Same reason given for Windows 10 build 10064 (fbl_kpg), stock registry hives builds don't have accurate compilation dates. So these pages should be deleted. Brennan1234567890 (Talk page | Contributions) 18:57, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

    Support

    1. As I said above. Brennan1234567890 (Talk page | Contributions) 18:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
    2. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
    3. What 149.19.32.77 said in the 10064 (fbl_kpg) AfD. 138.43.105.18 16:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

    Oppose

    Windows 11 Satya Nadella Full Keynote Microsoft Ignite 2022 build

    Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

    Deleted by Applegame12345i on 7 December 2022. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

    Build is not notable, also very low quality. —Sporb (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

    I've gotten rid of the page. —Applegame12345i (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

    Support

    1. I already know about the build since mid-2022, and I wrote a message on the author's talk page. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

    Oppose

    Retrieved from "https://betawiki.net/index.php?title=BetaWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_6&oldid=251161"