Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Padgett


 * 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 keep. The nominator has stated the article ought belong in cleanup. A significant number of sources have been presented as evidence for keeping the article. There are no delete votes. Per SNOW, I am closing this discussion on the grounds that any other conclusion other than keep is exceedingly unlikely given the current discussion. Given the clear outcome, I consider it detrimental to allow the nomination to run for the remaining time period. However, if anyone disagrees with this close please ping me on my talk page and I will undo the closure and leave the discussion to be closed by an administrator. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Jason Padgett

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I must question the notability of this article on the basis that Jason is in no way a physicist or mathematician, with his claims of having any ability in those areas is unsubstantiated by any mathematician or physicists. He never published any work in the field (and its been 2 decades!) and his understanding of the subject is also very elementary. Its more newspaper sensationalism that got him the fame after his diagnosis by Treffert (a very strange event considering that he clearly is not a mathematical savant; maybe it was on the basis of synesthesia alone?). Don't know whether that warrants the article being deleted, cause one can argue notability on the basis of him being somewhat known (in the same way that other people who make big unwarranted claims are known). Maybe instead one should merely alter the article slightly to make it clearer? Add a lot of "alleged by Jason" into the article? OpenScience709 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Alaska. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Articles for deletion is not Articles for cleanup. This article is not very well written, and can certainly be condensed, but Padgett seems to clearly meet the general notability guidelines. He doesn't need to be a practicing mathematician or physicist to be notable. His life and writing has been covered multiple times by independent, international media outlets going back at least a decade. In addition to the sources already cited, see for instance the following.          He has a devoted chapter in a recent scholarly book, is featured prominently in chapter 2 of Berit Brogaard's The Superhuman Mind, and his story appears in at least one introductory psychology textbook. In short, there is sufficient secondary material to craft a neutral, verifiable, accurate, encyclopedia article without resorting to original research. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes ok, it should be in articles for cleanup. Thanks for the detailed response! From an article cleanup perspective (and citations perspective), the problem is that none of the sources actually show that he is a "mathematical marvel", so I'm not sure how the article should deal with that. They all claim it, but they do not explain why, or prove it, and for the life of me I could not find any proof. They at most state that he can "see" mathematical formulas, which is a very ambiguous unverifiable statement by Jason. His sketches, while pretty, do not have any real mathematical meaning, besides the ambiguous meaning assigned to it like "oh this represents pi". I could draw a bunch of lines and say "this represents the complexity of pi", but that does not do anything. All the articles show is that he has synesthesia. If he could suddenly do insane mental calculations, or he became a top class mathematician, or he suddenly started producing fascinating original mathematical ideas that stimulate research, then sure. But that did not happen. So how should the article make this clear? OpenScience709 (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is in terrible shape, but the sources support that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:53, 26 August 2022 (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.