Security-evaluated operating system : While the references to FIPS-140-2 was updated to -3, the rest of the content is no longer relevant.   I would recommend excising this article, and healing the wounds with more up-to-date references.  Chumpih t 11:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions .  Chumpih t 11:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Isn't this therefore a merge or move proposition?  The article as it stands is outdated, but the history is not.  You say to heal the wounds with more up to date references.  Where?  That would presumably be the merge target.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 12:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Apologies for the lack of clarity.   I was thinking specifically the stuff that points to the article to be deleted - replace with more up-to-date and specific information.   I'm uncertain if there information herein is worth preserving outside the relevant article pages, e.g. we put some words on SUSE Linux Enterprise , etc.   Many of the OSs mentioned the article don't have their own pages, and therefore the information herein may fall foul of WP:NOTEVERYTHING .  Aside from questions of quality, we need to see WP:NOTE .   Certainly OSs get security evaluations, as do things other than operating systems.   But does that warrant an article with an incomplete list of OSs?   Homes get rebuilt— do we have a page on rebuilt homes?  In a similar vein, we have Security-focused operating system and Secure operating system , which are little better.   It may be more appropriate to have a page on Operating system security evaluation which describes the schemes and processes, as opposed to these pages.  Chumpih t 08:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Secure operating system is a disambiguation but Trusted operating system is another one.  All these pages are of limited value as they stand, but each contains some information that could indeed be part of a more comprehensive article.  I am still not convinced that deletion is better than merge though.  I will have to think about that some more.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 14:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Courcelles ( talk ) 14:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I agree that it'd be nice to have some newer examples, but the history is useful; when we teach students about this area at university level, we expect them to know about the foundations of secure OSs going back to the 1960s (and indeed it should really mention Multics).  See section 4 of CyBOK - Operating Systems , part of the benchmark for cybersecurity degrees in the UK.  Adam Sampson ( talk ) 16:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm, CyBOK, mentions 'evaluation' a handful of times, and doesn't refer at all to "security-evaluated operating systems".  Chumpih t 21:22, 28 April 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus