Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Permanent is sharp-P-complete
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
— user:mikkalai, 21:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:NOR (Wikipedia:Verifiability)