Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very large database
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
— User:Djm, 11:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:ORIGINAL (Wikipedia:No original research)