Deletion of Grok

Comment: As DGG says, this has been a notable concept, not merely a word, since the Sixties.  should not be misused to remove valuable content on notable subjects like this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICT)

Comment: The talk page states prominently that "This article was cited as a source in a ruling from the Land Use Board of Appeals of the State of Oregon, ''Friends of the Metolius and William Johnston, petitioners, and Tomas Finnegan Ryan, interventor-petitioner, v. Jefferson County''. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a court source#2006|Wikipedia as a court source."  As the factual nature of the article is not disputed and it has already been written into legal records, it would be disruptive to delete this.  There are also obvious |alternative to deletion.  Reading and adding sources would be a good start.  For example, see ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Q-7xBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA121 Open to Grok.  How do Hackers' Practices Produce Hackers?'' or ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5o69BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA146 Grokking User Needs''. The WMF should read this stuff too
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: mdash; specifically calls out our article on thou as a case where a word, by dint of its demonstrated notability, is an encyclopedic topic.  Here are two papers ''a few cites'' where the term is discussed at some length
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTADICTIONARY)