Deletion of Prenatal and perinatal psychology

Comment: u|OsFish}} 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 . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: 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 , the guideline for fringe topics. There it states (with emphasis added
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:NFRINGE)

Comment: It fails , as above, the only mentions are "in universe." in addition, the Journal certainly is not published by an academic publisher
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:NFRINGE)

Comment: Whether it's  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)