Deletion of Very large database

Comment: or '''Speedy keep''': The VLDB article has potential for growth and I expect at some point may receive a one liner from a/the storage section of the database article, and possibly one other location in it.  Giving some  thoughtlines the special processing referred to may relate to conventional DBMS management techniques becoming stretched so specialist approaches and configurations are required to holistically manage the scenario.  Technically 2TB, 8TB and 32TB file limit sizes have been issues, as have the number of files a DBMS can support.  Backup / recovery and maintenance will become issues.  All these best discussed in a stand alone article.  I know oracle used the VLDB term a lot, and quite simply not so sure about other vendors.  There are even whole conferences on it in 2005 and 2018!  I partly suspect due to some of the issues RDBMS can have with large data volumes, and partly due to fashion, a 'Bigdata' approach rather than getting into a 'VLDB' approach might be the current preferred approach.  In all events AfD's tend to be minimally disruptive for the nominator but can be disproportionally more so for a rescue or non minimalistic merge.  And AfD is a bad place for discussing merges.  In this case a Template:Missing information could have been a precursor step to going to AfD (not perfect but Okay.  So speedy keep add Missing information template is fine.  Adding the computing Wikiproject to the talk page would have been useful also
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:ORIGINAL)

Comment: The topic is notable; for example, here's a book about one aspect of it: ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xqbfBwAAQBAJ Mining Very Large Databases with Parallel Processing''.  To understand the general nature of this topic, see ''https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2009/09/16/building-the-biggest-scientific-databases Building the biggest scientific databases''.  Notice that this uses synonyms such as "biggest" and "extremely large", so we should include those terms too.  This demonstrates that the dictionary definition argument for deletion is nonsense.  We are not dealing with a particular word here and there is no dictionary content – etymology, grammar and the like.  Per , what we have here is a |stub for a |broad concept.  Note that the page used to be larger but much of the content was |split to form the VLDB page.  That's about an annual conference which is devoted to this topic – the http://vldb.org/2019/ 45th will be next year in Los Angeles.  They publish their proceedings each year and so that's another stack of potential sources.  As it happens, I shall myself be attending a https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/cambridge-wikimedia-meetup-tickets-49847099015?utm-medium=discovery&utm-campaign=social&utm-content=attendeeshare&aff=escb&utm-source=cp&utm-term=listing Wikimedia event tomorrow in Cambridge organised by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF||WP:STUB||WP:BROAD||WP:SPLIT)

Comment: into Database. This doesn't work as a stand-alone article because of its stubbish  nature, but including this in the Database article would improve it
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)

Comment: this article is a (very bad)  with no other content.  It is a "term of art" used in the industry and redirecting somewhere is appropriate
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICTDEF)