Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fetal psychology


 * 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 redirect to Prenatal and perinatal psychology. (non-admin closure)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  06:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Fetal psychology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason The article „fetal psychology“ should be deleted. 1. There is an improved and rewritten article „prenatal and perinatal psychology“ which contains useful information of the topic (fetal psychology). 2. The article „fetal psychology“ contains a large passage on the so called "fetal origins hypothesis", which deals almost entirely with physiological aspects – not with psychological aspects. 3. The part on the abuse of prenatal/fetal psychology concerning scientology does not define the field. It also discredits serious scientific work which constitute the scientific basis for assumptions concerning a „fetal psychology“. Mr. bobby (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes but you also wrote your call for deletion into the lead of the article, which is not done. Such comments belong here. I've cleaned up the article lead. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 August 8.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 15:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh also just to point out that the nominated article has been tagged as a merge to Prenatal and perinatal psychology since May 29, a proposal that is unopposed, with three commenters. BTW, the nominator deserves a great deal of credit for vastly improving Prenatal and perinatal psychology, it seems to me and I suspect is an expert in this field -- something we can use. So even if he's a tad unfamiliar with minor details like Afd procedures, we should very much encourage his contributions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My inclination is to go along with the nominator per WP:TNT, that there's so much pop culture stuff in the nominated article and there's no reason for it to have been split off from the prexisting Prenatal and perinatal psychology, except maybe for WP:POVFORK? But do you see anything worth retaining and merging into Prenatal and perinatal psychology? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Not much. The part on the „Fetal origins hypothesis“ might be useful, but not the findings mentioned here. there is new data on the connection of prenatal stress (of fetus and mother) and the negative outcomes on the baby’s psyche. but this is not worked out here. the rest (hemingway, hubbard) are anecdotes. overall, the article is useless. Mr. bobby (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, some folks may call for a 'selective merge' (as we call it here) for parts that are judged relevant. As you've nominated it for outright deletion, what's to be potentially preserved may become part of the discussion here. We'll see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect and hard protect to prenatal and perinatal psychology. This is clearly an ideological fork of an existing article, but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that it may be a common-enough search term. It should be protected to prevent re-creation without sysop intervention. If that is not feasible, then go ahead and delete, but make sure to salt it in any case. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect and protect per User:Bearian. there's clearly no reason to have two articles but I can see people searching the shorter term. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Prenatal and perinatal psychology per above. Doesn't seem like deletion is necessary -- probably could've just been boldly merged (if there's content to merge) and redirected without AfD. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.