Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenBSD security features


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

OpenBSD security features

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article goes into excessive detail that is covered adequately in the main article. This article should be deleted and redirected similar to List of OpenBSD developers and Puffy (mascot). Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur. Jserio2 (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you mind saying "delete" or whichever course of action you prefer in bold to match the format of other contributors below and WP:AFDFORMAT? That way, this comment won't be hidden and it will be easier to see how many keep, delete, etc. votes there are (although it's consensus and not majority rule, this would help others understand the discussion). You might also comment more besides "I concur" since consensus relies on solid arguments rather than just an up/down vote.
 * Note for other editors: I make the above comment due to the fact that this user's comment is nearly invisible, and I want to make it clear that there was another comment supporting deletion. I also notified the two "keep" votes here on their respective talk pages, and am not making this comment to influence the outcome of the vote, but rather to solicit varying opinions. I believe this is acceptable per WP:CANVAS. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Background: the nominator proposed this article for deletion on 2017-10-13 as "redundant with main article"; I contested the deletion on 2017-10-19 (two days ago), commenting: "Not redundant, gives much more detailed information".
 * Now, that greater detail is being characterized as "excessive" and itself used as an argument for deletion—without any indication of why it is supposed to be excessive. Yet the main article on OpenBSD devotes much of the second paragraph of its introduction to the security features of OpenBSD, as setting it apart from other operating systems. This alone would be enough reason to devote considerable detail—more than is suitable for a section within the main article—to those distinctive security features.
 * Also, comparisons with other articles on other subtopics are without merit as precedents. Each article is to be judged on its own merits. No argument of any merit has thus far been advanced for any substantive changes to the text of the page, let alone for its deletion.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nominator response: In regards to the point above as to why it is excessive, it might be worth noting that there is no FreeBSD security features article, nor is there NetBSD security features or even any other operating system that I can find. It is true, as noted above, that OpenBSD has a security focus, but there's no reason this couldn't be covered adequately in the main article. This also makes it easier to ensure quality sourced content, which should be comprehensive, but not exhaustive. If there is in fact anything in this article not in the main article that is important, it should be moved there. Tonystewart14 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As already noted, each topic must be judged on its own merits. Analogies with other operating systems are without merit, not only because security is not equally a focus of all operating systems, but also because the absence of Wikipedia pages specifically about the security of other operating systems could in some cases be itself a problem that needs to be fixed by creating such pages, rather than a precedent to be followed. In the meantime, let's stick to OpenBSD.
 * Exhaustiveness and quality of available sourcing are both non-issues (although the quality of sources actually cited in the page at present may possibly be a substantive issue). A Google Books search on "openbsd security" turns up, on the first page of results, an entire book specifically about OpenBSD security, a second book that covers OpenBSD security along with that of FreeBSD, and a third book that presents OpenBSD as a whole, but with a pervasive focus on security throughout. I've added these book references to the page, along with the last book's remark that OpenBSD "is widely regarded as the most secure operating system available anywhere, under any licensing terms." Also, OpenBSD's firewall system PF has its own Wikipedia page, which cites three additional books specifically about PF, all of which mention OpenBSD explicitly in their titles, even though PF has been ported to a number of other operating systems. The present page on OpenBSD security features could not possibly be exhaustive even if it were 20 times as long as it presently is. It should probably be expanded, rather than deleted, especially to make clearer the role of PF in OpenBSD security (though not to 20 times its present length—that's a thought experiment, not a suggestion!). Although the section WP:UNDUE within WP:NPOV is mostly geared toward excessive coverage of a particular aspect, excessiveness is characterized in terms of proportionality to what is in the sources. Trying to tone down an aspect that is given such extreme prominence in the sources is undue weight too. Ultimately, neutrality is about having the page's coverage reflect what is in the sources.
 * It's possible that some of the page's present content should be removed, but that's a matter to be addressed by normal editing, not page deletion. The section WP:ATD within the policy WP:DEL states:
 * If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
 * and
 * Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.
 * These approaches should have been tried first, especially since the page was last edited extensively over a year ago. Every effort should have been made to involve those who created and extensively updated the page before nominating it for deletion. I'm not going to do that, since such an action by a Keep !voter in the context of an AfD might amount to canvassing. But the nominator should have done it—and it's not too late now. Going straight to AfD when only the appropriate level of comprehensiveness is in question (and not, for example, notability) is contrary to the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * To touch on a few of your points: My logic was actually the reverse for why I went to PROD/AfD now rather than wait. It wouldn't make sense to spend a lot of time improving this article only to have someone delete it later. I would rather first establish a consensus to delete or keep and improve the main article in the former case or this article in the latter. If we do in fact keep this article, we could improve it (as we already have been today based on the edit history!) and establish a plan of what facts are fundamental for a main article versus what is better suited for this separate article but is still not so trivial as to not be worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia at all.
 * As far as involving editors, there is a brief comment from at the top of this page supporting deletion, and this user is the only one who has recently commented on the talk page of the main article. Also on that talk page,  commented the following:
 * "Perhaps we should merge OpenBSD security features into OpenBSD, if only in a slightly simplified form. I think the security features are a major reason (if not the primary reason) to use OpenBSD, and putting them off in a separate article makes them harder to find, and makes it seem as if they're not as important."


 * I concur with this analysis, which is why I brought the article to PROD/AfD. Thus, it actually has had some past discussion with other editors.
 * I applaud your work on the article and your well-constructed comments here. Whatever the outcome of this AfD, I'm confident that the coverage of OpenBSD on Wikipedia will be improved considerably, and perhaps get the main article back to Featured Article status. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, ! I hadn't noticed the comments by in the Talk:OpenBSD, only the very brief discussion in Talk:OpenBSD security features. I'm now getting a clearer picture of what issues the AfD was really intended to address.
 * I've had relatively little experience as an editor of Wikipedia, but a great deal of experience as a reader of it, so I'd like to offer an opinion on what makes a subtopic easy to notice and to perceive as important. To me, the presence of a "Main article:" link at the top of a section is a very strong and emphatic statement of the importance of the section's topic: it has its own page, doesn't it? Also, a section with a "Main article:" link is easier to read and navigate than a long, monolithic section with all the material incorporated directly into the section. The dividing line between encyclopedic summary and unencyclopedic, excessive detail is not absolute, but relative to the topic of the article; what would count as excessive detail in OpenBSD may be encyclopedic when moved to OpenBSD security features. I can get a quick summary from the section, and click through to the main article if I want more detail. A relatively short page with "Main article:" links to pages on important subtopics is far more useful to the reader than a long, monolithic page.
 * So I'd recommend trying the following: keep the subtopic page OpenBSD security features, and optimize it separately from OpenBSD. More emphasis can be given to security features throughout OpenBSD without making OpenBSD security features redundant. The book Absolute OpenBSD might be a good model: it stresses the role of security in OpenBSD throughout, yet still has a specific chapter on security—and two chapters on PF. When both pages are well optimized, if it turns out that OpenBSD covers everything that needed to be covered in OpenBSD security features, then the latter can deleted as redundant—not before. This approach is likely to mean more work for the maintainers of the article, but it will yield a far superior result for the reader.
 * Incidentally, statements about security as fundamental to OpenBSD, and as a principal reason for using it, need not be confined to talk pages. They are supported by secondary sources and can be incorporated into the text of both articles.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  06:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep: The article is well-enough sourced, and OpenBSD is in fact notable specifically for security (multiple entire books by major independent publishers have focused on OpenBSD for security). The fact that this article is fairly detailed (well within encyclopedic bounds) is why we have WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT; it's entirely normal to spin off detailed sub-articles on encyclopedic subtopics to keep the main article at a readable length (and to summarize the split-out article at the main one; this is how WP:SUMMARY works, by design). The fact that some non-encyclopedic splits (about a mascot, and a list of developers) were merged does not mean we merge away encyclopedic articles. Finally, "there is no FreeBSD security features article, nor is there NetBSD security features" is a silly red herring and a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument; we don't have such articles precisely because neither of those OSes are notable specifically for their security. The fact that the same nominator has first gone after this article for not being detailed enough, now reversed and tried to delete it for being too detailed, both times without providing an  suggests an "OS warrior" PoV being pushed.  WP doesn't care whether you like OpenBSD or not; we are going to continue to provide encyclopedic material about it, and continue to follow the WP:LENGTH rules by spinning off side articles when they are warranted. If you want to propose a merge, which appears to be the case, the proper process for that is to tag both articles with a merge tag, and open a merge discussion at the merge-to article's talk page (Talk:OpenBSD), and make a case for a merger that will be within the article length limits and how this will better serve readers by being merged than by being in a separate article; then "advertise" this discussion at WP:PM.
 * Keep The notability of the topic is evident from the attention it has gotten in reputable and unconnected secondary sources. Since OpenBSD's security focus is both its defining characteristic and its raison d'être, arguably the most important question that an encyclopedia article about it should answer is: "What security measures distinguishes OpenBSD from other operating systems?" As it happens, the answer to this question is long enough to warrant a separate article, and that is what we have. —Ringbang (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * KEEP As another user said: "OpenBSD is in fact notable specifically for security (multiple entire books by major independent publishers have focused on OpenBSD for security)." Editor-1 (talk) 04:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep because this is one of the most notable things about OpenBSD of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWizard (talk • contribs) 16:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.