Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glassceiling

DicDef, stolen from www.m-w.com. Delete unless expanded -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, rewritten version is good -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:52, 6 May 2004 (UTC)


 * 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 Copyright problems -- Cyrius|&#9998 01:01, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * I fixed it up. Should be a decent stub now. -- VV 02:00, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Keep. We shouldn't create artificial barriers preventing this now fine stub from becoming a full article.  TB 08:29, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep the fixed version. Andris 05:02, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep the new version. --VTEX 05:26, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 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)