This article was nominated for deletion on 19 August 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Jason Padgett is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles
I propose that the section Redemption and impact on math should be removed. It has no sources, the redemption is supposedly that of his attacker, not him. And while it may be true that "Jason believes ... his abilities to see geometric shapes will play an important role in science and math". There is no evidence that it actually has done so. Vexations (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree. Padgett has shown no actual mathematical or physics ability (and I tried very hard to find something, including going through his book). Considering that its been over 20 years and he still has made a single contribution to either mathematics or physics, I think we can safely say he is not a "mathematical genius". OpenScience709 (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to be a person with interesting mentation. Well worthy of inquiry or as a contributor to the American Visionary Art Museum. But there's no evidence given in the article that he has contributed to mathematics or physics as disciplines. That angle seems to be an invention of journalists. 2A02:1210:2642:4A00:8DAB:90:38D5:DC85 (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
