The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spatial Humanities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a complete lack of third-party coverage here. Possible advertisement for David J. Bodenhamer's paper, which is the only "source". — Timneu22 · talk 17:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete original resource, neologism not in circulation, personal promo. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article seems to be delicately balanced at the intersection of non-notable, neologism, original research, and wordsalad. bobrayner (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.