Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perspicacity


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Nomination Withdrawn. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Perspicacity

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article meets criteria for speedy deletion A5, but someone contested its speedy deletion. Even the admin who restored from speedy deletion said that he felt the article was still just a dictionary definition with an entry in Wictionary. The new text added is just examples of where the term is used, and has the appearance of an awkward attempt to stretch a dictionary definition into an encyclopedia article. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources provided all address the topic of perspicacity as a concept, not as a word. There is no etymology, pronunciation, grammar or other dictionary-like content here.  Instead we have the work of psychologists and other scientists who have studied the matter and value the talent.  The article is still short but that just makes it a stub.  Please see our policy WP:DICDEF which explains that "Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.".  Warden (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment As the admin previously mentioned I make no further comment about the article, except to mention that the keep comment here is posted by the author of the greater part of the article. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No thanks to you nor the nominator &mdash; neither of you followed the common courtesy of notifying me of this nomination. Fortunately, I was bored by the party I was attending this evening and so thought to check my watchlist before retiring. Warden (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Warden, please maintain civility. The instructions for nominating an article for deletion do not direct to specifically inform any individuals. Even if they directed to inform the original author of an article, that would be Cyrillic, not you. It is not rational to expect people nominating an article for deletion to personally invite every individual who might have an interest in the article to the AfD discussion. The Afd template at the top of the article is expected to suffice. I reasonably assumed that since you asked for a reversal of the speedy delete so quickly you must have the article on your watch list and would see that it had been nomed for afd, just like everyone else with it on their watchlists. Rest assured my nomination has little to do with the brevity of the text in the article, and much to do with tone, usuage of sources, etc. Not every abstract word in the English language needs a Wikipedia article. For most, like this one, a Wictionary article suffices. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:AFD which advises that "it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion". Warden (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The full quotation is: "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Very telling that you would leave out the "While not required" part.Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely correct that it's not required. That means that failing to make an effort to inform the author or other contributors does not invalidate the deletion nomination, nor would it in itself bring about any sort of direct sanctions against you. However, it does show a lack of courtesy on your part. The main reason why we don't require it is because sometimes the author and/or major contributors are long absent from the encyclopedia, or have been blocked, or are otherwise unable to contribute to a deletion discussion so setting a hard rule that requires you to inform people goes against common sense. That's obviously not the case here. I suggest that you make a greater effort to be more courteous in future deletion nominations. --  At am a  頭 00:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no call for such officiousness. The only reason we are discussing this is because Warden tried to make it an issue when I tagged the article for speedy deletion. He tried to use my not informing him as a reason for calling Anthony Bradbury's deletion of the article "improper", to which Anthony Bradbury pointed out a.) Warden was not the author and claiming to be so was "disingenuous", and b.) Warden hadn't actually edited the article since 2010. Bradbury saw through Warden's claim, but now he's trying it again here and you have bought it hook, line and sinker. It is ridiculous for him to make a federal case of "you didn't inform me" when he had already made it quite obvious he was monitoring the article and didn't need such notification. There has been actually quite a bit of questionable behavior from Warden besides that, including leaving off "while not required." That's just petty stuff I can overlook, but his edits to expand the article since it was restored are concerning to me because they misuse outdated references to make claims the references do not support - that hurts the project. Look at the NASA-related source. Your time would be better spent focusing on content-related issues like that than wagging your finger at me.Mmyers1976 (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Articles do not become dictionary definitions merely because they are about words. Note also the dissimilarity between the current version of the article and the wiktionary entry. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the dissimilarity of the current version of the article (ie the changes Warden made to it after he got the speedy delete reversed) is starting to concern me very much. Warden's misuse of the NASA source (see my response to Dream Focus below) is one example of what is appearing to me as an effort to load the article up with "justifications" to keep it without regard to faithfulness to the sources. There is a strong appearance of page ownership and pointy-ness starting to emerge. Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Its not just a definition. NASA considers it notable enough to test people for it!  What a concept.   D r e a m Focus  23:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You should examine that NASA-related source from October 7, 1966 more closely. It is a 45 year old article that said the word "perspicacity" was used in a recruitment brochure. It did not say that perspicacity was "tested" for. It also never said that the quality was "the most important quality required" as Warden's text claims. That was actually a pretty egregious misuse of the source. Mmyers1976 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - When I first began to read the article and read the first line, my first thought was WP:DICTDEF. But once the article began to discuss how Descartes defined the term as one of the two components of intelligence I realized that the article did not fit that label. Dictionary definitions are articles about the word itself, however this article discusses the concept of perspicacity and how various authorities have approached and valued the attribute. I see no other deletion criteria that would apply to the article either. --  At am a  頭 23:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My concern with the Cartesian use of "perspicacity" is that of course, Descartes didn't write in English. So, it is important to 1. know what Latin or French term he used to describe the concept that has been translated as "perspicacity", and 2. has that Latin or French term been consistently translated into English as "perspicacity" throughout the years? Is "perspicacity" considered a psychological concept by anyone besides Descartes' translator? My psychologist wife, who did and published research into theories of intelligence, tells me she hadn't heard of the word until I asked her about it this weekend, so I think more and better sources need to be found to establish the notability of a concept of "perspicacity." Mmyers1976 (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The word perspicacity is somewhat old fashioned, one doesnt come across it that often in contemporary discussion, but cant think of a better name for this challenging but important topic, which has wide ranging application. A nicely written stub, with sufficient coverage found to pass WP:GNG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdraw Nomination Though some of the "keep" !votes seem to indicate they did not carefully review the sources being used and how those sources were being used before rendering their opinions, it is pretty clear that the "keeps" will prevail, so I withdraw my nomination in the interest of focusing on fixing the many problems with this article for now, and seeing if it can be turned into a workable article before considering another nomination at a later date. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.