Deletion of Perspicacity

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: When I first began to read the article and read the first line, my first thought was . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICTDEF)

Comment: 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  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stub (WP:STUB||WP:DICDEF)