Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glassceiling

DicDef, stolen from www.m-w.com. ~~Delete unless expanded~~ -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rewritten version is good -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:52, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Clearly unacceptable as it stands, with its proud statement of copyviolation. Can't decide if it could become an article. Would any article that would arise essentially be an extended etymology? --bodnotbod 23:52, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
Move to Wikipedia:Copyright problems -- Cyrius|&#9998 01:01, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
I fixed it up. Should be a decent stub now. -- V V 02:00, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

comment: As a new person, I can't help think it's still a dic.def. but now with added links. I think it's a good thing to define, but perhaps the 'glass ceiling' thing should just be a part of the articles you've helpfully linked to? I'll see what others have to say.--bodnotbod 02:56, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

V's cleanup looks fine. Keep. Alcarillo 02:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We shouldn't create artificial barriers preventing this now fine stub from becoming a full article. TB 08:29, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fixed version. Andris 05:02, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
Keep the new version. --VTEX 05:26, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
keep, of course. Does anybody bother trying to edit these articles, or is it just the practice to VfD anytime one's blood pressure increases while reading the encyclopedia?SimBot2 17:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]