BetaWiki:Articles for deletion/Archive 7

Windows Me build 2365

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted on 3 January 2023. BF10 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This build is not notable. The author of the article said (on my user talk page) that the build number is mentioned in a "Windows Me activities center video", however they did not provide a link to the "video", so the build is not notable. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
  2. Yes. I think they can move to Hall of Shame. Hanhan188 (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
    Why Hall of Shame? I don't think it would go to the Hall of Shame. Brennan1234567890 (Talk page | Contributions) 00:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  3. No indication of notability; also the video uploader has a history of questionable contributions to the wiki. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 08:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
  4. Prerty much what Ryuzaki has said. Xeno (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
    lol Ggsetup 16:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
  5. Obviously not notable and fake. Brennan1234567890 (Talk page | Contributions) 00:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
    So i set it from unconfirmed to fake ? Ggsetup
    You should set it to fake, since you passed off a fake build from someone who cannot be trusted. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 04:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
    Ok, I will at to list of build of Windows Me at fake Ggsetup
    You don't need to do that. I removed the build from the Windows Me article for a reason. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 09:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
    What you reason ? Ggsetup 17:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
    Like I said, the build is not notable AND fake. Offtopic: I suspect that your English is not good based on your own grammar. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  6. Agree with Ryuzaki and Xeno on this one. This doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Shame (it's not even bad enough to IMO). Tobi (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
    Is 1 day guy Ggsetup (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    What even... Tobi (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  7. Barely notable. MyFaceNeverWhen (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Ggsetup Im now send the video link to to narainsider user page so I have proof to this build exist, just look at desktop right bottom and read the build number
    Remember, KenOath cannot be trusted. They shared some fake builds (which might include the build I mentioned) in the past, so builds originating from KenOath can be considered non-notable. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 07:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
    It's way too easy for someone to put a build number in a corner for that to prove anything. The fact it claims to be registered to KenOath is also a giant red flag, since there have been cases of other people trying to pass off fake builds this way. Lastly, it shouldn't take countless requests and a deletion discussion for you to finally provide a link to said video. On this wiki, we work with facts and if you add content, you should also ideally provide sources right away. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 08:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
    Oh ok,anyway, it will be fake until it mention in a Windows Me build 2368 or higher, someone of you find because im only have mobile Ggsetup 16:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

File:Mebuild2365.jpeg

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted on 3 January 2023. BF10 (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, Windows Me build 2365 is not notable, so we should delete this file. Brennan1234567890 (Talk page | Contributions) 00:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

There was no need to make a new AfD just for the image, you could have simply appended your request to your message above. Xeno (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Support

  1. Shouldn't this be merged with the main discussion above? Either way, it's best to delete this also. --Tobi (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Draft:Windows Server (Core)

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted on 9 February 2023. BF10 (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

We don't really need a whole page for a SKU of Windows Server. It is simply not notable enough to have an article of its own. Core is simply an edition/SKU of Windows Server that lacks the desktop interface and instead uses the Command Prompt as its user interface. For example, an article on an edition of Windows 7 like Enterprise would absolutely not be notable since it can be detailed on the Editions section of the Windows 7 page. The exception of course would be if the particular SKU or edition has major differences that make it notable in some way like with the many Windows XP variants.

The draft page of Windows Server has a whole section dedicated to talking about what Windows Server Core is and how it differs from a regular Windows Server installation. Because of that, an article on Windows Server Core is just not necessary since it can be explained on that page since it applies to Windows Server as a whole.

I know this was a little overdue, but since the information about the Core SKU of Windows Server is on the Windows Server page, I think it is safe that we delete the Windows Server Core page.

WindowsGuy2021, 6:54, 12 January 2023, (UTC)

Support

  1. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  2. ✅ Support. We don't need pages for SKUs, they are not necessary. Windows logo (2006).svg 763004 (Talk • Sandbox) 14:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  3. The SKUs available/shown are on the build pages, so this draft is useless. Windows logo (1985).svg MyFaceNeverWhen • TALK.EXE 00:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
  4. Already mentioned in the main Windows Server page User:Someone/Signature/Design1

Oppose

File:8441-boot.png

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Deleted on 21 February 2023. BF10 (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This is redundant. Build 8441 actually use File:84008441boot.png. The file for deletion was just taken when it's fading out. rebrand soon (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Image has been deleted under QD for being a duplicated file. BF10 (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Windows 10 build 14340

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

To note: tag's real (and so are the MobileCore packages for it), client Enterprise SKU watermark image isn't. Article deleted. - pivotman319 (📫) 15:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

This supposed build's only available image is a clear fake. Just concentrate on the 5 in that build tag, it looks poorly edited. Windows logo (1985).svg MyFaceNeverWhen • TALK.EXE 18:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

That 5 uses Arial, not Segoe, so it can't be a bug in the font and theme engine. Clearly just some sort of cheap editing. But, the 14340.rs1_release string looks real, because it uses Segoe. They are probably hiding the real compilation date because it's Microsoft's confidential information. I can't get my own opnion, so I don't know which side to choose.User:Someone/Signature/Design1
Well, it could be a bug and a no, maybe there was a Typo in the theme Engine, but I can't really confirm. There was also Windows 8 build 7899, which uses the Ariel font in the "Microsoft Confidential and bottom Watermark" because of a Typo. Correct me guys because I can't confirm. --Shams1917 (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
A watermark can't use 2 different font in one string. I think they are hiding the real compilation date. User:Someone/Signature/Design1
Yes, a Watermark can't really use a lot of fonts, but I just can't confirm. I will cheque it myself and I will say. (You can cheque with me) Also, I don't know why they are hiding the Date. --Shams1917 (talk) 06:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
There definitely (Maybe) looks to be a space between the 20 and the 10. Or is it just me? --Shams1917 (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I see it too. User:Someone/Signature/Design1
You can try it out on Windows when you type 2010 into WordPad with the font set to Segoe UI and the size to 8. - Windows logo (2001).svg Bob2204 Arrow.png Click here to begin. Or here. Arrow2.png Talk 14:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh, woah Bob, you are a genius! so this means the 20 and the 10 aren't fake. It's just the 5 which was fake. (Sorry if I messed up on the picture, It's just it wasn't small. + The filename is there. sorry guys. I'm just new to adding pictures in my username/the picture was just too big.) WindowsWhistlerLogo.png --Shams1917 (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Tip for the image: do it the following: [[File:Placeholder.png|15px]]. 😁 (@Shams1917) - Windows logo (2001).svg Bob2204 Arrow.png Click here to begin. Or here. Arrow2.png Talk 15:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Support

  1. Windows logo (1985).svg MyFaceNeverWhen • TALK.EXE 18:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  2. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  3. The 5 and the 2010 look fake, There looks to be a Space in 2010 where it is "20 10". Shams1917 (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  4. Yep, that "5" in the watermark sticks out like a sore thumb. Seems to be an edit of a pre-existing screenshot. Jurta (talk • contribs) 14:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  5. Definitely a non-notable fake. The "5" is in a different font, and the "20" and "10" are spaced apart. Windows logo (2006).svg 763004 (Talk • Sandbox) 13:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
  6. This thing with the 20 and the 10 is actually typical for Windows. The 1 is always displayed with this (kind of) larger space. Sounds odd, but it's the case. (@763004, @Shams1917) - Windows logo (2001).svg Bob2204 Arrow.png Click here to begin. Or here. Arrow2.png Talk 14:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. This is not fake. What/
    Keep and reject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.27.21.219 (talk • contribs)
    No. It has been AFD many times. 2001:F90:40A0:991:358E:FCA5:FFB5:E0B6 12:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Windows 8 build 7985 (fbl core1 kernel cptx.110503-1501)

Closed "Article for deletion" discussion

Withdrawn by nominator. --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 13:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Just look at the Start screen, It seems very "8175"-like. Also look at the Charms bar from the video compared to builds 7989 and the older compile of this build. Also has some applications from 8102.101. (5 in a row, News, etc.) --Shams1917 (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you implying Microsoft executives demonstrated a fake build? --Ryuzaki (talk | contribs) 11:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. Welcome to how demos work. Not everything has to be from the build itself, this how demos have pretty much always worked. Xeno (talk) 10:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
  2. Components of this build may be transplanted from a later build in 8020+ range but the build itself should have been compiled and demonstrated. Re-compiling builds was not a strange thing especially at that time. MicrosoftRTX2080 (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
  3. Canceled this because turns out that's how Demos work. Sorry. --Shams1917 (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
  4. 7985 is from a special branch focused on kernel development, while 7989 is winmain. Features in this build (like the Start screen) weren't implemeted into winmain until somewhere in 80xx. If you want to know how build labs function, look into the page I linked here. And thanks for eliminating my original comment! - Windows logo (2001).svg Bob2204 Arrow.png Click here to begin. Or here. Arrow2.png Talk 11:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
  5. NaraInsider1694 (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
  6. Internal resources. The new Metro resources (I mean the 8xxx-like resources) at that time is currently in development and it do not get integrated to the public branches at all. An example of this is Windows 11 build 22528. It has build 22557 features such as the new snap layouts. User:Someone/Signature/Design1
Retrieved from "https://betawiki.net/index.php?title=BetaWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_7&oldid=268006"