Deletion of Extravagance

Comment: as , without prejudice to  or recreation as sourced content about the concept of extravagance (i.e., as a literary/religious theme?). Note: at the moment, extravagant redirects to eccentricity (behavior) and might be a reasonable target for this as well, but the content regarding extravagance there is essentially just a dicdef as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF||WP:HEY)

Comment: It is our |policy to keep short articles with potential - they are called |stubs.  Our |dictionary policy explains at length that shortness is not proper grounds for considering an article to be a dictionary definition.  And, as for TPH's extravagant claim that the article cannot possibly be improved, please don't get me started.  The rest is the |argument to avoid of 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT||WP:STUB||WP:DICDEF||WP:ATA||WP:NOEFFORT)

Comment: until such time that it can be shown that an article can be written on the subject that is more than a standard |dictionary entry
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)

Comment: Per , properly construed, the Loranger  citation has been moved to Novelty seeking
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: Per , and my comments above on factual errors in the arguments of those voting Keep
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT)