Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prenatal and perinatal 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 no consensus. Any necessary editorial decisions on merging or rewriting this article can happen at the appropriate talk pages. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Prenatal and perinatal psychology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A heteroclite jumble of resources all somewhat linked to the psychology and moral philosophy of childbirth. The article appears to give undue weight to the self-published scholarship of Wendy Anne McCarthy - I suspect that the article may be a coatrack for her own ideas. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be plenty of sources for this topic including:
 * Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Medicine
 * Introduction to Prenatal Psychology
 * The Unborn Child
 * The Prenatal Psychology of Frank Lake
 * Prenatal Development of Postnatal Functions
 * The Prenatal Theme in Psychotherapy
 * Prenatal and Perinatal Factors in Psychological Development
 * Prenatal Determinants of Behaviour
 * I suppose that it's a difficult topic but, per our editing policy, that's not an adequate reason to delete it. Andrew D. (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * TNT it. This is a badly written article. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 12:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * comment Sadly, yes - this is my own recommendation. Unless some brave editor will tackle this vast topic in medical science then we are left with this messy hodge-podge. --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT is not policy. Our actual policy is WP:IMPERFECT which states explicitly that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome."  Andrew D. (talk) 12:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm undecided until I research more. So far I agree with all that's been said. (1) It's a "heteroclite jumble" (thanks for the new word, very fitting here) of loosely related sources and it gives undue weight to McCarty. (2) There are sources that exist that use words that are also in this article's title. (3) It's badly written. But I don't know if any of those are reasons to keep or delete it, because I still don't know what "prenatal and perinatal psychology" is claiming to be. I don't understand what the article is trying to describe it as and I have not found any independent, reliable sources that define it yet. If we were to keep this article, can someone explain like I'm 5 what's it's supposed to be about? PermStrump (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is undue promote of Wendy Anne McCarty and other fringe ideas, it should be deleted and redirected to Developmental_psychology where the concept is already discussed. HealthyGirl (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Fringe theories/Noticeboard. PermStrump (talk)  19:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI I mentioned this AFD on WT:MED and WP:PSYCH. PermStrump (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Undue weight is no reason for deleting the entire article. HealthyGirl,why don't you attempt to fix the article instead of wiping it away. Your interest in skepticism should do this article well.--Lo te xendo (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * : What do you see this article being about? This is a genuine question. I'm not sure how to judge its notability, because I'm not sure what counts and what doesn't as being part of the same topic. Previous editors have felt any source that used the words prenatal or perinatal and had something to do with psychology, emotions, behavior, cognitive abilities, etc. was fair game for this article (see this version from a few days ago before I deleted most of it was WP:SYNTH). I got stuck when I was trying to work on editing it before this AFD was proposed because I wasn't sure what the topic was. Is it/should it be an expansion of Developmental psychology? That's not how it reads, but I could see an argument for there being enough to say about prenatal psychological development that it should have its own article. I imagine a sort of umbrella article where most sections would have a hat-thingy with a link to the main article and a summary of what's in it (e.g., There would be a section on in utero exposure to drugs and alcohol with links at the top like: "Main article: Fetal alcohol syndrome" and "Main article: Prenatal cocaine exposure"). If we were to go with this, personally, I'd like to move the article to Prenatal developmental psychology or something that isn't an ADMASQ and for what I presume to be a fringe group.
 * On the other hand, there does seem to be a fringe group that sees "prenatal and perinatal psychology" as its own specific branch of psychology. Our friend Wendy Anne McCarty was apparently the "co-founder of the Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology MA and PhD Programs at Santa Barbara Graduate Institute," which claims to be the "pioneer" in offering a program specifically devoted to prenatal and postnatal psychology. They only advertised one other program before they closed—somatic psychology—which is well-known fringe to me. I assume this group is involved with the publication of The Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health (which is peer-reviewed per Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, though their website says that their information is provided by the publishers and Ulrich's policy is not to make judgments on the quality of peer review). The journal is hosted at birthpsychology.com, so that makes me wonder if "birth psychology" is a more appropriate name for the fringe topic (assuming it's notable enough). I get the feeling that they deliberately chose the title "prenatal and prenatal psychology" because the terms are broad and commonly used, so it allows them to be associated with any work using those terms even though the vast majority of it doesn't have anything to do with the "field" of study called "prenatal and perinatal psychology" that was allegedly* offered temporarily at the now-closed Santa Barbara Graduate Institute. (*See my recent PROD on the SGBI article). PermStrump (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * PermStrump I see or would like to see the article being about how the psychological experiences and stresses of the mother can affect the development of a child/fetus in utero. Also maybe how early after birth experiences of the baby affect later development and/or psychological disorders. There is also the possibility of using fetal pain from fetal interventions/surgery and new born pain/surgery and psychological development. The options are broad but workable I think. I've read some of the The Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and Health and I think most of it is nonsense personally. But there was one article that seemed interesting:Prenatal Maternal Stress: Neurological and Physiological Impacts on Offspring.
 * The way Wendy Anne McCarty discusses "prenatal and prenatal psychology" is pretty fringy but we do have an article on prenatal maternal stress which is similar in scope to this article and hasn't had any problems.
 * I'm a n00b so I know my opinion doesn't count for squat right now. But from my lurking I feel like an inclusionist. But maybe we could scrap the nonsense but keep the article or maybe delete it but replace it with an article with a similar scope? What do you think?--Lo te xendo (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

For a fringe theory to be considered notable, and therefore to qualify for a separate article in Wikipedia, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia.
 * Keep. The concept seems notable . The article may have NPOV issues, but it doesn't seem to be a TNT-able mess. Tag it wit UNDUE/NPOV and such, but it is, worst case, a poor draft that is nonetheless passable as a mainspace article and will eventually be used by less-POVed editors to develop into a better one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete On the one hand, there are journals, MAs, Associations all dealing in this topic, which made me think this is a sure keep. But on closer inspection, it appears to be all a bit woo, and I'm not convinced that it passes WP:NFRINGE, the guideline for fringe topics. There it states (with emphasis added):

A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents.
 * I haven't found anything independent of the promoters of P&P Psych as I would understand it, and only occasional unreliable web comments describing it as woo. Does anyone have anything that would show independent coverage? OsFish (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete took the words right out of my mouth. I spent a good amount of time last night looking into it and I decided that it is definitely an article on a specific fringe view, not an article on developmental psychology that got overrun by fringe creep, so we need to be applying WP:FRINGE. I have not found a single independent, reliable source discussing this topic, not even to debunk it. It pretends to be the precursor to child and adolescent psychology, but C&A psychology is a speciality at many mainstream, accredited programs, whereas P&P psychology (to steal OsFish's acronym), was only ever allegedly offered at one unaccredited school, the Santa Barbara Graduate Institute (SBGI), which closed in 2012. I couldn't confirm in any independent, reliable sources that any academic programs at SBGI existed, let alone that it actually offered psychology courses on this topic, and in my research on this article, ended up PRODing that one. P&P psychology is fringe because it's not offered or even mentioned by accredited institutions and it's not mentioned in any mainstream, independent, reliable sources. Except Prenatal Development of Postnatal Functions, which doesn't seem to be at all related to P&P psychology, all of the sources people have mentioned in this deletion discussion thus far are "in-universe." The majority of sources have been published by Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology and the rest are books that were written by the people directly affiliated with the journal (e.g., Introduction to Prenatal Psychology, which was self-published).


 * TLDR: P&P psychology isn't offered (as a course or speciality) or even mentioned by any accredited institutions and it's not covered (not even a passing mention) in mainstream publications. No one here has been able to offer an independent, reliable source that cover this topic. It's not even notable to be debunk. It fails WP:NFRINGE, because the only the only mentions are "in universe." PermStrump (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. In addition to being fringe, it's also an WP:ADMASQ for a defunct, unaccredited masters and PHD program at SBGI that, if it ever existed, would have been around when this article was created, and for the Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology, which requires membership to the association of Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology. I don't see any encyclopedic content worth saving. <b style="color:indigo;">PermStrump</b> (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * delete agree w/ PermStrump--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per Permstrump, OsFish, and nom. Keilana (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * KEEP as it is a subject of interest, a real subject, and could use more development and work, but not deletion. Also note there has been a recent huge pruning of the article, and so take a look at the article before that pruning before deciding as well. SageRad (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick look indicates there are potential reliable sources for the topic in which case the subject is notable per Wikipedia. If there is undue weight it can be trimmed. The main consideration is whether or not there are RS for the topic. Note that this article  has been designated the mother article for the topic O(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC))
 * "... designated the mother article for the topic" I think means the "See also" hatnote at Developmental psychology. I replaced it with a more appropriate "Main article" hatnote for Prenatal development, which is the article that section summarizes. Littleolive oil, which independent, reliable sources were you referring to? <b style="color:indigo;">PermStrump</b> (talk)  07:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete No notability established by independent reliable sources. Woo-meter is hitting red on this one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm uncertain how to comment for now so I'm asking for familiar analysis.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. whatever I may think of the merits of some of the work in this field, its a real academic field and appropriate for an article. I am unaware of the exact meaning of"woo-meter" but it sounds like an instrument for measuring "IDONTLIKEIT".  DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , in what way is it a real academic field? Where is it offered? —PermStrump  ( talk )  03:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Books are written about it. Textbooks are written for teaching it. Journals are devoted to it. Whether it should be considered that distinct is not for us to determine--merelt that it is so considered.  DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Which textbooks specifically that are clearly about this topic and not a tangentially related topic were published by independent, well-respected, academic publishers? So far I've only seen self-published books. —PermStrump  ( talk )  18:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 14:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as I have been thinking and DGG's analysis is convincing enough. I also noted the article seemed acceptable enough. SwisterTwister   talk  21:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Whether it's WP:FRINGE or not, the subject still appears to be notable, regardless of its veracity. Can't say I understand the article too well, but it appears to be (passably) well referenced. Perhaps it could do with a healthy dose of skepticism. WPancake (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * DeleteIt fails WP:NFRINGE, as above, the only mentions are "in universe." in addition, the Journal certainly is not published by an academic publisher. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The idea that prenatal psychology is totally disconnected from the rest of psychology seems absurd. For example, consider the paper, Fetal Psychology: An Embryonic Science by Peter Hepper.  He's a professor at the Queen's University where he quite happily recounts his prize for Outstanding Contributions to Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology.  His paper is reviewed in the NEJM as "especially strong".  We have an active field here which seems far less fringey than flat earth theories and other weird science which we are content to cover.  The idea that birth is a significant and traumatic event has been around in psychology since Freud and so it's no surprise that it continues to be studied. Andrew D. (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify for anyone else looking for it, "Fetal Psychology: An Embryonic Science" by Peter Hepper is a chapter in a 1992 book Fetal behavior, developmental and perinatal aspects and neither the book nor the chapter connects itself to the field of "prenatal and perinatal psychology." While clearly "fetal psychology" is loosely related, it's a perfect example of the kind of WP:COATRACK this article is. They want to claim everything tangentially related to it as part of the same "field." No one is denying that experiences in utero affect fetal development, including psychology. We're saying that there is no real field called "Prenatal and perinatal psychology" and the people associated with it have non-notable fringe views and then try to claim mainstream views as being under the umbrella of the same field. The notable concepts are covered under other articles such as fetal development and developmental psychology. —PermStrump  ( talk )  13:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fetal psychology and prenatal psychology are just synonyms. The page in question was actually started as Birth trauma.  It was moved to something like the current title some months later.  Birth trauma then got turned into a disambiguation page and then lost its connection to this page when an IP-editor substituted a link to childbirth-related posttraumatic stress disorder which is something different.  There is no conspiracy of "they" making these changes.  Instead it just seems to be a game of Chinese whispers in which Permstrump's butchery of the page is the latest garbling.  In such cases of confusion, it is important that we don't delete the pages because their edit history is helpful in unravelling what successive editors have done over the years.  Andrew D. (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the terms are synonymous, but they could both be used as general terms and not necessarily part of this field. There's no indication to me that "fetal psychology" in that book was a reference to the P&P psychology "field" of study. On his website, the author says that his research interest is "Prenatal development of human fetal behaviour". The only connection to P&P psychology is that the association gave the author an award and he mentions it on his website, yet he doesn't ID himself on his website as ascribing to this field of study. I only removed content that was unsourced and dubious or unsourced/not pertinent and clearly promotional or where the source didn't connect itself to this topic. There happened to be a lot of all of that. I was originally planning to find better sources and expand on the sections where I had removed a lot of material, but I couldn't find any. Then it was nominated for deletion, so I looked harder, and still couldn't find any independent, reliable sources. —PermStrump  ( talk )  18:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article in its current form might be restrained by its title, because those hypothesis were recycled elsewhere. Many fundamental premises of the development of those concepts are part of transpersonal psychology or derivatives of the Jungian school of thoughts. What is treated in this article sure is not fringe, the problem lies in the current form the article takes and its title (because those hypothesis have been published under several other names). Reading it, one might think it is some fringe theory, when all the aspects of developmental psychology are brought to their full extent. This material sure must go somewhere, merged or a rename as to incorporate the subject in something more general. I do not have a proposition as to what name to give it. It seems there is yet no clear consensus in the scientific community. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: If the article were deleted, where, in Wikipedia, would a reader find the same information? --Dennis J au (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe any information of encyclopedic value will be lost. People inside the bubble will continue going to the journal, self-published books and websites. Apparently not many others are looking for this information because otherwise people outside of the bubble would be writing about it. —PermStrump  ( talk )  15:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

"'I don't understand what the article is trying to describe it [prenatal and perinatal psychology] as and I have not found any independent, reliable sources that define it yet. If we were to keep this article, can someone explain like I'm 5 what's it's supposed to be about?' PermStrump"
 * Delete (and rewrite) as per numerous arguments above. From what I've been able to gather, *this* particular topic just doesn't seem to have gained enough good-quality independent coverage *under this name* to satisfy the GNG, a situation made more complex by the fact that it's far from clear whether the sources are even talking about the same thing as the article - terms like "fetal psychology" and "prenatal psychology" are used in sources that may or may not refer explicitly to the exact subject of this article. With that said, if someone knowledegable on the topic could take this into userspace and rewrite it so that it (a) cites stronger sources and (b) explains why it's notable, I suspect it could come back as a decent article. At the moment, I don't know what value it's providing in this shape, as frankly it's bordering on the unreadable. ✤ Fosse   8 ✤  15:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: With respect to the following questions:
 * and "'Can't say I understand the article too well' WPancake"


 * From a 5 years old's point of view, I think the study of psychology as such could be seen as learning about the psychological impulses and biological mechanisms that influence people's responses to other people and events.


 * A salesperson might study psychology to better understand the impulses that shape the responses of people to the salesperson's marketing/sales messages, the ultimate aim being to 'close sales'.


 * Likewise a teacher may study psychology to better understand the responses of their students, in order to make their lessons more attractive and digestible to those students, again, ultimately, to help their students enjoy greater success at school and in life.


 * A manager might study psychology in order to foster more productive relations among those under the manager's supervision.


 * Studying the psychology of prenatal and perinatal babies has a slightly different purpose. A salesperson does not sell baby gear to the baby, but to the parents. Likewise teachers don't get to instruct such babies directly.


 * Prenatal and perinatal psychology is more concerned with the prenatal and perinatal conditions that impact a baby's psychological development, particularly from the point of view of how the psychological impact of early events may affect a baby later in life.


 * For example, in mainstream psychology there is a common understanding that unresolved trauma can 'negatively impact' a person later in life. If the trauma remains unhealed then the effects becomes chronically embedded in the sufferers life. In the last couple of decades there has been an explosion of research into war veterans and PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) which tragically reveals the consequences of war trauma in the lives of individuals, their families and whole communities.


 * The psychological impacts of trauma are well established. Going beyond war veterans and PTSD, other research questions are: what degree of severity of trauma produces 'clinically observable effects'? What are the clinically observable differences between the effects of chronic, low level trauma and acute high level trauma? How far back in a person's life can trauma occur and still have a serious impact on an individuals healthy functioning as a human being?


 * When we speak of 'impressionable youth' we are also pointing to these types of questions. A more systematic approach would be to study the things that leave impressions on impressionable youths, and at what age, how young, do these impressionable events start having an impact?


 * As I understand it, amongst other things, pre- and perinatal psychology examines all of the above types of questions in pre- and perinatal babies. --Dennis J au (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you may have rather missed the point about why people think this article should be deleted. The issue is not what Prenatal and perinatal psychology could mean, it's what it does mean in terms of being a defined field, according to those very few who walk under its banner. (Etymologically, astrology could be the study of the stars, but it isn't). The argument put forward by Permstrump and others (including me) is that the "field" that calls itself Prenatal and Perinatal Psychology isn't that bit of mainstream psychology that looks at the impact of prenatal experiences on the psychology of the individual. Instead, it appears to be pseudoscience that hasn't attracted enough attention from outworld sources even to merit an article about how it's pseudoscientific. The master's degree that was on offer was from a non-accredited college; the journal was not out of a recognised publishing house, the main source that gave shape to it appears to be a self-publisher and so on. This all looks like it fails as a subject per WP:Fringe.OsFish (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect - It's agreed that this article here is a jumbled mess of a few nuggets of good research mixed in with lots of pretentious nonsense that has nothing to do with real science. The title itself is a reflection of a fringe theory and not what's actually used in real academic study, so the problems go to the core. Rather than keep rehashing the debate on whether to just TNT this pile of garbage or keep it despite all the problems, I've tried to cut the Gordian Knot by creating this: Fetal psychology. I now boldly propose that we shift the few positive contents of this article over to that one, which has the title actually used scientifically. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was possible... but your new article is looking good. I like the new title better because you're right about the original title being an invitation for fringe. I'll try to contribute in a little bit. —PermStrump  ( talk )  11:57, 28 May 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.