Deletion of OpenBSD security features

Comment: 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  and ; 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  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  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 {{em|actual deletion rationale}} 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  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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SUMMARY||WP:SPLIT||WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:LENGTH||WP:PM)