Deletion of Sophistication

Comment: The article is a |stub and the |dicdef policy goes to some trouble to explain the validity of such stubs in our work.  The source provided to support the topic is a book of 232 pages which documents the history of the concept in a detailed and scholarly way, being published by a university press.  The notability of the topic is thus established
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stub (WP:STUB||WP:DICDEF)

Comment: This is a clear .  The single sentence lead is the dictionary definition of the word, and the 2-sentence "history" section is a partial etymology of the word.  These are all elements of a dictionary definition.  It has been claimed that this article is only a stub and is capable of being expanded beyond a dictionary definition, but this has not been shown to be true and I have my doubts that it is possible
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)

Comment: I originally |prodded this article but it was challenged by the author (Colonel Warden). The article as it is now actually resembles a dictionary article, but I believe that I was wrong because "Sophistication" itself could definitely be expanded upon. It's a piece of culture, if you think about it; it ''could be'' encyclopedic
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (WP:PROD)