Prolonging a PhD to improve research CV, is this good ?
As Irwin suggests, prolonging the PhD to improve your research track record is a standard strategy, especially for students who are interested in pursuing an academic career.

The minimal requirements to get a PhD are fundamentally weaker than the minimal requirements to get an academic job.  Despite all high-falutin' talk to the contrary, the only real requirement for completing a PhD is convincing your thesis committee to sign the requisite paperwork.  Most faculty have an image in their heads of the necessary work; for example, in computer science, a minimal PhD thesis is roughly equivalent to two solid conference papers.

On the other hand, the academic job market is a true competition.  Only people with truly outstanding research records (and strong recommendation letters) get invited to interview for faculty positions, or accepted for research postdoc positions.  It doesn't matter whether you're "good enough"; lots of people are "good enough". What matters is how you compare against other people on the market.  So it's actually quite rational to delay completing the PhD past the point where you have a viable thesis, in order to improve your research record.

That said, phrasing the delay in terms of "making your thesis stronger" is totally missing the point.  Your PhD thesis is an administrative hurdle.  At least in computer science, if you're lucky, three people will ever read your thesis, including you and your advisor.  (The standard joke ends "...and your mom.")  Your colleagues will see and judge your track record through your peer-reviewed publications in conferences and journals.

So, the short answer is: Do more original publishable research, and then publish it.  And then I guess you could show off to your committee by including those results in your thesis, but whatever.

Also, please slap your advisor for me.