:::WP:NPOV is a difficult matter when there are a number of "practitioners" of a WP:FRINGE theory.  I hope you realize that, if the theory is considered "fringe", then believers are automatically considered "fringe", regardless of their credentials in other fields.  Hence, all we really need for "pseudo-scientific" is a firm statement by a recognized expert or journal that it is not scientific, if the believers are not recognized experts in the field.  How "recognized" is determined is left up to the experts in the field.  Hence your requests are both unnecessary and insufficient to support the present content. 
 :::As for "pseudoscience", if a statement is considered "not even wrong", even a statement by a recognized expert, it will not be called "pseudoscience", as the consensus of experts in the field would be that it is not science nor does it resemble science.  If, however, it "claims" to be science, it meets the definition of "pseudoscience", in the view of those experts.  WP:NPOV and WP:SYN make it difficult for us to say that it is pseudoscience, but we should not imply otherwise. 
 ::: —