Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/lookahead

• Dicdef that can't go beyond that. Concept is simple to explain, and needs no article. Meelar 00:32, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow, was I wrong. Withdraw nomination. Meelar 01:02, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef that I've never heard of Much better now, keep. -- Graham  :) | Talk 12:26, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• An actual article could be written on the subject, but this is a poor start for one. Delete -- Cyrius|&#9998 02:43, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
• (no vote) topic well covered in Computer Chess. Mat-C 02:45, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, but add significant content. I'm on it. Derrick Coetzee 18:23, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the new version, has been improved. Andris 22:29, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Much better. Keep. -- Cyrius|&#9998 00:16, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
• OK, I've learned more about that abstruse computer stuff than I'll ever need to know from this article. Definitely not a dictionary definition. Keep. Some cool guy 01:01, 1 May 2004 (UTC)