Deletion of Overspending

Comment: The nominator is apparently unable to see the potential for expansion.  He cannot then have either read the article, which contains substantial sources on the topic, nor searched for sources, which are abundant.  For example, on Google Scholar alone, there are http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_epq=Overspending thousands of sources such as http://hec.osu.edu/people/shanna/bae.pdf Patterns of Overspending in US Households.  The reference to  is inappropriate since the article does not focus upon the word - its etymology, pronunciation, etc - but upon the topic.  It might be a case of ''Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary articles are short, and that short article and dictionary article are therefore equivalent.'' but I fancy that the appearance of this nomination is related to another AFD which we are contesting and so this is a case of /.  Tsk
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF||WP:STALK||WP:POINT)