Deletion of Permanent is sharp-P-complete

Comment: with a transwiki to Wikibooks if not a copyright violation.  The proof is complex enough that it's almost certainly either a copyright violation or .  Merge statement of theorem to permanent and #P-complete, if not already done (and it doesn't seem to have been done).  Transwiki proof to Wikibooks if not a copyright violation, and delete.  The proof, itself, is not notable, as a contrast to Proof that 22/7 exceeds π, where the proof has other significant characteristics.  (The name of the article is terrible, as well, and if redirects are necessary for GFDL, it should be moved to Proof that Permanent is sharp-P-complete, and the existing article name deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: Firstly, . Secondly,  says "include proofs when they expose or illuminate the concept or idea; don't include them when they serve only to establish the correctness of result"; this proof is not unusual or illuminating. It consists of showing that a problem known to be #P-complete is equivalent to the calculating the permanent of a particular matrix, a very standard approach to such complexity proofs. Result could be mentioned in the permanent article, but we don't need to reproduce the blow-by-blow details
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK||WP:MOSMATH)

Comment: All this discussion still has not fixed possible issues with 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTTEXTBOOK)

Comment: This result is fundamental to both permanents (and a lot of work on the borders between statistical mechanics and combinatorics) and the theory of #P-completeness (and the polynomial hierarchy more generally) in computational complexity. And as someone else pointed out it's too long to be merged into either of its parent articles. The following argument is kind of |waxy, but still, if you're going to get rid of this, you might as well get rid of all of :Category:Article proofs and reduce Wikipedia to more of a Schaum's outline of mathematical results, asserted to be true and with pointers to the literature, but with all explanations of why they're true excised. The article could use improvement (too much first person) and I don't care for the title (should be a noun phrase such as Sharp-P-completeness of the permanent rather than a sentence) but those aren't reasons for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX)

Comment: With mathematical proofs we are treading on a very sharp boundary between original research and encyclopedic texts.  This particular article is nothing beyond retelling a proof published in an original article, i.e., based '''solely''' on the primary source - AFAIK it is '''not admissible''' in wikipedia.   With proof complex as that, the major issue is woth |verifiability: I have no reason to believe that the wikipedian represented correctly the ideas of the proof, and this article may be actually a disservice; and just as well the original proof is available in libraries. In many cases a proof of some theorem is so notable as to be reprinted in several monographs, with commentaries and explanation. An encyclopedic article is possible in this case: it may consist of the outline of a proof, its associations and ramifications '''as presented by experts in reliable sources'''. This is not the case here. It is a nice, but still |original essay, a non-reliable retelling of a tale. Of course, any wikipedia article is basically retelling of some tales by wikipedians, but the case of mathematics brings the issues of verifiablity no n-th degree
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR)