The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Enigma^msg 05:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Koobface2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hoax, there is no variant of the Koobface malware under this name, 15 hits on Google, all of which appear to originate from Wikipedia. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and WP:SALT as the original creator may well just try and create it again (especially as it seems like a single purpose account with no other edits). Alot of the refs are for Koobface which may appear to make the article credible until you scrutinise further and find this isn't the case. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found nothing about this specific malware from an online search, except from sites which appear to have copied and pasted straight from the Wikipedia page. Per Champion, this looks like a hoax and should be deleted. Tillerh11 (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's too soon to SALT since this appears to be the page's first creation, but it's almost certainly a hoax, and definitely doesn't belong here. Pinging Legacypac to get his thoughts as the editor who accepted the draft. Nanophosis (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the page looks on its face quite legit well written with lots of refs. I may not have noticed the 2000 part of the title and this is not an area I'm super familiar with. One of the advantages of mainspace is many editor see a page and someone will pick up on anomalies like this. Legacypac (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.