Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sieve of Zakiya


 * 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   DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Sieve of Zakiya

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article was written by the author of the proposed sieve; it constitutes original research in its entirety. The only two references are to documents written by the author himself. The author then engaged in self-promotion on google groups, and attempted the same in Math.stackeschange. It fails due to (i) conflict of interest; (ii) original research; (iii) lack of verifiability; (iv) lack of notability. Magidin (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - in the absence of evidence of sufficient independent coverage per WP:Notability (and with WP:COI and WP:OR as contributing factors.) --DGaw (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * delete as above, entirely OR with serious COI concerns, never mind that most of it (extensive source code rather than proper explanation, pages of pointless data) doesn't belong in any article.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 00:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems to be WP:MADEUP.  I could find no reference to this anywhere in the scholarly literature.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The author has written in the talk page about the deletion. Should that be moved here, or should he be told to make his case here? This is my first call for deletion, so I'm not sure of the protocol. Magidin (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He should read the arguments here and reply in kind. The section on the talk page is simply tl;dr and really won't help him.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 03:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've left a note in the talk page directing him here. I'll leave a note in his user talk page as well. Magidin (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, full agreement with Sławomir and the 'made up' claim above. It's not just OR, it's not even good maths either. Fatphil (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Sasha (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Strictly OR. EEng (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep (moral support for author per don't bite the newbies). Really though, Wikipedia isn't the right place for this article, because of the lack of sourcing discussed on the article talk page (we've had to become much fussier about this as the encyclopedia as gotten larger).   It would be great if the author is willing to stay around and contribute in other topics that do have external sourcing.  For this particular article, try Rosetta Code (rosettacode.org), which doesn't have the constraints Wikipedia has.  66.127.55.52 (talk) 07:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - self-promotion and OR. And we already have an article on wheel factorization. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article presents information that advances the field of knowledge in two existing areas of coverage within Wikipedia, Sieve and Primality Testing algorithms. It mimics the same structure and form of the Sieve of Eratosthenes, Sieve of Atkin, and Sieve of Sundaram, while presenting a more extensive explanation of the math behind it, with more useful and tested real code (not just pseudo code). This work is over 3 years old, being released into the public domain in 2008, along with all software, as is customary with Open Source Software and culture. The math and software presented in the article is accurate and verifiable. I note no one has questioned the accuracy or validity of any of the information merely that I am citing my own papers and not others. Since I know of no other papers or articles that have been produced on my work its hard for me to cite them. However, I know the work is being used because as I have stated I get emails from people about my work. But I'm having a hard time seeing how my citations of my 2 publicly available 3 year old papers is much different than the single reference in the Sieve of Atkin article of the creator of that algorithm with no other independent work cited to verify it. The only difference (beside 2 versus 1 paper referenced on each work) is that a third party referenced the Atkins paper, which is presumed to be verifiable without independent corroboration, than my papers. The fact my papers were not published in some peer reviewed academic type medium does not detract from the validity of the information. If the issue is the validity of the work presented in my prior papers it seems they can be reviewed by people who are competent to evaluate them. It seems this whole issue has devolved to "style over substance" concern. All knowledge and invention does not come from academic environment or culture. The merits and significance of the information should be more important than who's presenting it. If Linus Torvald wrote and article on Linux or the git software cvs system would his articles be rejected too, though he knows more about his creations than probably anyone else (I can already hear people shouting yes!)? As a reader and consumer of Wikipedia I think those rejections would be a loss to my understanding those topics. Finally, it seems from some of the comments in favor of deletion, that those individuals either haven't read my whole article to try to understand it, read it and don't understand it (it is not wheel factorization), read it and didn't see how it compares to the other Sieve articles, or read it and didn't try any of the software to verify the mathematical foundations of it. I would urge you to actually take the time to objectively read the article in totality, and make an effort to understand what's going on. If you do that, and if you understand it, and are honest with yourself, I would find it hard to believe you would still feel this article does not have a place in Wikipedia, like the other Sieve algorithm articles have. Jzakiya (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)jzakiya
 * Comments such as "if you understand it, and are honest with yourself [then you must agree with me]" are non-constructive. Please avoid that kind of implied personal attack on those who might disagree with you. Note again that the issue is not 'correctness', but verifiability in the sense of Wikipedia. Magidin (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The comparison to the single reference in the Sieve of Atkin article is not a valid comparison, IMO. That reference is to an article published in a major, peer-reviewed journal for the field (Mathematics of Computation, published by the American Mathematical Society). That qualifies as a reliable source within the context of Wikipedia, whereas two self-published articles that did not undergo appropriate peer-review and are not part of the scientific literature for the field simply do not; it's not about quantity, it's about reliability. Also: the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "advance the field of knowledge"; that's the purpose of the professional, peer-reviewed, scientific literature. Magidin (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The statement my papers are "not part of the scientific literature for the field" is incorrect, because you limit what constitutes the "field" narrowly. The code to implement the Sieve of Zakiya has been in the open domain and discussed openly and used in at least 4 software languages (Python, Ruby, Forth, C/C++) user groups since its release in 2008. In fact, the software creation and improvement has been from inception the driving force, to be able to do a faster/simpler sieve program than existed at the time I started to develop this. So traditional academic journals may be one place work may be evaluated, but what really matters is the useability of the work in the field, where real work has to get done. Unfortunately, you still don't address the issue of the technical merit of the presented work. Do you find anything that you claim is technically inaccurate within the article? If you, or no one else, can cite anything that is technically incorrect within the paper, then it is prima facie accurate, and therefore reliable, especially since I have working software that puts the theory into practice.
 * Also, I think others, besides me, would disagree with your statement "the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "advance the field of knowledge"". The sentiment expressed by that statement seems to directly contradict the statement from here that "the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia.." By definition, encyclopedias are the repositories of increasing knowledge. Thus, when Wikipedia accepts new articles it is "expanding" its size, and these new articles constitute an increase (advance) in the information (knowledge) pool of Wikipedia, and hopefully not an increase in ignorance or false information.
 * But again, this devolves the focus into "style over substance" issues of bureaucracy and misses the most important point that the article presents, which is this. By taking the simple mathematical expression Pn=mod*k+ri, which there are an infinite number of, you can not only generate (with increasing efficiency as the modulus increases) all the primes upto any N with complete accuracy, you can take the same expression (or any one of the infinite number of them) and with an even simpler algorithm determine the primality of any integer N with 100% certainty. Now, that is a beautiful discovery heretofore unknown to mankind as far as I have been able to ascertain. This work hits on some fundamental insights into the structure of numbers (theory) that are waiting to be uncovered if more people start to investigate what is surely the surface of an iceberg of knowledge. From the feedback I've been getting directly, others have that same feeling too. Jzakiya (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)jzakiya
 * I interpret "scientific literature of the field" as "scientific literature of the field." I.e., peer-reviewed, peer-recognized publications. This is, as far as I am aware, the standard definition. I also note that you insist on arguing about the veracity/technical correctness of your addition. I quote, again, from the Wikipedia verifiability policy which is one of the core content policies: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." And you continue to misconstrue and misinterpret what "verifiable" means in this context. Whether the material is correct mathematics/code is irrelevant as a reason for its inclusion. A second core policy is No Original Research. This is core policy states: " Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." Reliability here is not gauged in the way that you have argued (whether readers can go through the arguments and check their mathematical validity, or whether the code actually runs): The meaning within Wikipedia is: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." Self-publishing, even if made available, almost never qualifies as a "reliable source" within the meaning of Wikipedia. As for Wikipedia, I agree that encyclopedias are repositories of knowledge: but they are meant to be repositories of established knowledge, not vehicles through which the knowledge will become established. My impression is that you wish to use Wikipedia as a platform for making this work better known, and that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia, or of Wikipedia. Finally, discussing whether the article actually meets two of the three core content policies is hardly a matter of "style over substance". In fact, what you describe as "the most important point the article presents" is irrelevant, because the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability (in the sense of Wikipedia, not in the sense you insist on using the word). The reason I don't address the technical merit of the work is because the technical merit is irrelevant for the purposes of Wikipedia; if I was being asked to referee this for a peer-reviewed journal, it would be the key question, but for Wikipedia, it is not. The fact that you keep insisting that this is somehow the one and only, the key question to ask and answer suggests to me that you do not understand the core content policies. Magidin (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If others agree with your statement -- "because the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability (in the sense of Wikipedia, not in the sense you insist on using the word). The reason I don't address the technical merit of the work is  because the technical merit is irrelevant for the purposes of Wikipedia "-- I will be greatly distressed. It seems to you "truth" exists only as accepted papers and not as something independently self-assessed by experimentation and use. You won't determine my article is "true" from self-assessment but only if someone(s) else says so. I would direct you to this article on Scientific misconduct and particularly this acknowledgement: "In addition, some academics consider suppression—the failure to publish significant findings due to the results being adverse to the interests of the researcher or his/her sponsor(s)—to be a form of misconduct as well." It seems when the technical accuracy and usefulness of a work is NOT the primary basis of assessment, but rather some artificial proclamations by some guardians of knowledge with vested interests, suppression of knowledge is not only possible but becomes required. Think the Catholic Church and Galileo, Chinese Cultural Revolution, et al. Apparently one thing that is going on here is a clash of cultures. I come from an engineering and Open Source Software cultural where "truth" is determined by how well people using your stuff determine how well it works in the real world. If it works, its "true", if it doesn't, its not. In my world the information presented in the article works and is therefore "true" and "reliable". I am disappointed that is not good enough, or even important, for you, and some others. Jzakiya (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)jzakiya
 * No one wants to hear your amateur lawyering. You've been told over and over to read WP policies, links to which have been kindly supplied by editors more patient than I.  Either read them, and then come back to the discussion, or stop wasting everyone's time. See also WP:ICANTHEARYOU. EEng (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The short version of why your article can't stay in Wikipedia (as I formulate it to myself) is that WP is NOT an encyclopedia of knowledge, but rather it is an encyclopedia of published knowledge. That's all. Find other vehicles; Rosetta Code is one (mentioned already I believe). Literate Programs is another. Or just blog about it. Maybe one day another global project will be started, that one aimed for the communal discovery of knowledge, and not just of published knowledge; but WP is not it.
 * On the merits though your sieve just incorporates the Wheel factorization technique, so does not seem like something new. There's no complexity analysis for your primality testing procedure comparing it with Miller-Rabin. Your article is too verbose and has too concrete examples (code snippets) to the current tastes prevalent on WP. One of policies is "WP is not a code repository", for instance. It just isn't; but Rosetta Code is precisely it, and it lacks Wheeled Sieves at the moment (just a friendly hint). You want to contribute, but Wikipedia is not a publishing vehicle (unfortunately ?). It just isn't. Cheers, WillNess (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This advice seems to be worth listening to.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ( There's also Mathoverflow, CodeReview, math.stackexchange.com etc. WillNess (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC) )
 * Neither math.SE nor Mathoverflow are appropriate fora either; Mathoverflow is for research level questions, not for research announcements; math.SE is for questions and answers in math at all levels. Zakiya already attempted to make a post in math.SE that consisted of his announcement of the new Wikipedia page; it was closed as off-topic, which it was. Magidin (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Supposedly there is some place where one may post their algorithm and ask for opinions of one's peers?? Arguably a description of this algorithm could be posted at mathoverflow and a question asked whether it's valid or not? If not there, surely at math.SE then, if it's for "all levels", yes? Isn't an algorithm a part of "math"? Is CodeReview an appropriate venue then, or WP:RD/Maths with a short question pointing to a full-blown blog posting perhaps? -- WillNess (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly, a question asking for references, asking for comparisons, etc., might be appropriate. But as seems clear, this is not what the original poster is looking for. He is looking for a platform from which to publicize what he is already convinced is a major insight, something "heretofore unknown to mankind". And neither MO nor math.SE are appropriate for that. I don't know anything about CodeReview. Magidin (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to read and understand Wikipedia's policies on Verifiability, Sourcing and Original Research, referred to by editors above. Here they are:
 * Verifiability.
 * Identifying reliable sources.
 * No original research.
 * Then you need to identify the reliable sources this is from, so it is properly verified and so it is not original research.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 05:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Asking that you abide by the standards of Wikipedia in order to include material in Wikipedia is not "suppression of knowledge", and it's not scientific misconduct. You base your (often personal) accusations on a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. What standards I use to determine what I consider to be "true" I have not disclosed to you, and, yet again, are irrelevant, because the core policies of Wikipedia state, explicitly, that whether an editor believes the material to be true or not is irrelevant as far as judging its appropriateness for inclusion in Wikipedia. It's not that I will not believe you, it's not that I will only believe someone else; it's that it doesn't matter one whit whether I believe the content of the article to be true or not. I echo JohnBlackburne's suggestion that you actually read the policies on Verifiability, Sourcing, and Original Research. Wikipedia is hardly the be-all and end-all of knowledge, so to accuse editors that are trying to abide by the explicit core policies of Wikipedia as far as Wikipedia is concerned of being suppressors of knowledge, to compare them to the Inquisition, etc., is to completely miss the point. Magidin (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as poorly-sourced OR. Unsuitable material and format for WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxanthippe (talk • contribs) 01:51, 11 December 2011
 * Delete, we already have an article on the wheel sieve. Further, the name is a neologism and as such not appropriate for Wikipedia. The sieve is inefficient compared to modern sieve implementations; compare it to, e.g., yafu. And WP:V has already been brought up: there has not been any coverage of this topic independent from its source.  So for those three reasons it's pretty clear that it needs to go. Oh, and I suppose WP:OR may apply as well, but that's borderline since it's pretty much just a bog-standard SoE with a wheel. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, these statements show a complete lack of understanding of the work and the software to implement the algorithms. It seems you are not technically competent to evaluate my work objectively. Jzakiya (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)jzakiya
 * I think it's pretty clear to anyone with experience in computational number theory who read the article that you lack technical competence. As for me... well, it's not my article or algorithm being evaluated, so that's moot. But I'd wager that I have more expertise in both software design and mathematics than you.
 * But we can focus on the verifiable aspects instead, if you like. If you think your program can outrace yafu then time it against your program for the primes up to, say, 10^10.
 * CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, since you're so smart YOU do the work to compare my algorithm against ALL the known sieves and document where it stands within the performance rankings of all of them. Then YOU submit that work for scrutiny, of course with the appropriate code that can be independently run and verified. I'll be waiting for YOUR results. 98.204.33.105 (talk)jzakiya —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC). — 98.204.33.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Or I could just sit here and let your article get deleted. Hmm, hard choice. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As you know, yafu (Yet Another Factorization Utility) is a factorization program, not a prime sieve. My article does not address factorization of integers. However, because my primality tester finds a prime factor to determine primality, it can be modified to become a prime/factorization utility too. I have written Ruby code to do that (haven't tested yet), but it's very straightforward. I am willing to make you a deal. If you show you are earnest in assessing my algorithms versus others then you have to demonstrate you have at least taken the time to run my code as given, and send me your results on your system. I will share with you (and anyone else) my factorization code to test also. If you are really interested, please contact me offline via email to facilitate this process in an orderly manner. FYI, on my Linux I5-2410M 2.3GHz laptop, the prime? code returns answers to those 12 digit integers shown almost instantly upon hitting return, and that's in Ruby, an interpreted dynamic language. Non-primes answers are faster because they return factors quicker. I have done a couple of 21-digit numbers (123456789123456789107 is prime) but didn't time it because it took much more time. Again, if you run the code and send me your result I will know you are serious and will work with you. 98.204.33.105 (talk) 06:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)jzakiya
 * Indeed, it is much faster:
 * Almost immediately, whereas primegen takes a full 50 seconds (although it gives more useful output). But seriously, even with integers that are small enough not to cause your C++ program to crash, your algorithm is already beaten by orders of magnitude by a naive sieve of Eratosthenes (included in the primegen package that I linked to above).  The included eratspeed.c completes primes up to 10^9 in 0.9 seconds.  Yours takes 11 seconds.  None of this is entirely relevant to the AfD, but I think it should make you seriously reassess the worthiness of your prime sieve for any kind of publication or promotion.  It's really not very good at all.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Relevant aphorism: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
 * I asked you to communicate with me via email. This forum is not the correct place to have ongoing technical discussions. I can send you my, and others, benchmark results if you communicate with me offline. But thanks for at least running the code. And just to give you and others something else to test/use, I finished coding/testing my factorization routine. Here it is in Ruby as a class Integer method:
 * Almost immediately, whereas primegen takes a full 50 seconds (although it gives more useful output). But seriously, even with integers that are small enough not to cause your C++ program to crash, your algorithm is already beaten by orders of magnitude by a naive sieve of Eratosthenes (included in the primegen package that I linked to above).  The included eratspeed.c completes primes up to 10^9 in 0.9 seconds.  Yours takes 11 seconds.  None of this is entirely relevant to the AfD, but I think it should make you seriously reassess the worthiness of your prime sieve for any kind of publication or promotion.  It's really not very good at all.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Relevant aphorism: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
 * I asked you to communicate with me via email. This forum is not the correct place to have ongoing technical discussions. I can send you my, and others, benchmark results if you communicate with me offline. But thanks for at least running the code. And just to give you and others something else to test/use, I finished coding/testing my factorization routine. Here it is in Ruby as a class Integer method:

class Integer def factor n = self.abs factors = [] while n%2 == 0; factors << 2; n /= 2 end while n%3 == 0; factors << 3; n /= 3 end while n%5 == 0; factors << 5; n /= 5 end sqrtN = Math.sqrt(n).to_i p1, p2 = 7, 11 while p1 <= sqrtN # n not prime if (n-ri*pj)% mod*pj=0, for P5, mod=6 and ri=[5,7] # si= 5*pj, mi = 6*pj, ti = 7*pj f=0        # holds current factor if any s1 = 5*p1; m1 = s1+p1;  t1 = m1+p1 f = p1 if (n-s1)%m1 == 0 || (n-t1)%m1 == 0 s2 = 5*p2; m2 = s2+p2;  t2 = m2+p2 f = p2 if (n-s2)%m2 == 0 || (n-t2)%m2 == 0 if f != 0  # do if factor found factors << f; p1=1; p2=5; n /= f; sqrtN = Math.sqrt(n).to_i end p1 += 6; p2 += 6 end if not factors.empty?; factors << n end factors.sort  # if N prime returns empty array [] end end


 * It returns results like these instantly.

188882782676.factor => [2, 2, 7, 3121, 2161427] 188882782676123.factor => [19, 19, 2861, 10039, 18217] 123456789123456789.factor => [3, 3, 7, 11, 13, 19, 3607, 3803, 52579]
 * Come on. look how simple this routine is. And this is an unoptimized sequential implementation in Ruby. But again, let's take this offline. 98.204.33.105 (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)jzakiya
 * Comment: This is utterly irrelevant to this AfD. This is not a peer-review forum to assess the worthiness of the underlying algorithm or implementation. Wikipedia is not a peer-review forum to assess the worthiness of the the underlying algorithm or implementation, nor is it a platform for Zakiya to publicize or distribute his ideas. As WillNess nicely put it, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of published knowledge, and this sieve fails to satisfy the notoriety criteria and the reliably sourced criteria for inclusion. Magidin (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! You seem really adverse to learning and the proliferation of new knowledge. Hope you get over it. 98.204.33.105 (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)jzakiya
 * This ruby code is quite offtopic. Wikipedia is not a platform for your own self-promotion.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! You really don't understand the notion of "appropriate forum." Kindly get off your soapbox and stop the personal attacks, take a look around and recognize where you are. This is not a classroom, this is not a forum for your self-promotion. To everything there is a place and a time, and you're in the wrong place, which is the only thing that I am objecting to. If I were sent a paper on the underlying economic causes of World War II to referee for the Journal of Group Theory, I wouldn't have to read it, and I wouldn't have to discuss its underlying historical merits, in order to reject it for publication; and such a rejection would not mean that I am "adverse to learning", or "adverse to the proliferation of new knowledge", nor that I am somehow a guardian of orthodoxy against novel historical research, or engaging in academic dishonesty or suppresion. This is exactly what I am doing when I propose your page for deletion and when I object to you putting forth code and discussing the underlying merits of your sieve here: this is not the appropriate forum for either. This does not represent aversion to learning, suppresion of knowledge, or inquisitorial, dishonest behavior; it represents my opinion (based on the core principles of Wikipedia, which you have failed to address) that this is not the appropriate vehicle for what you want to do with your work. Magidin (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, per lack of notability actually. -- WillNess (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, as per most of the reasons already given above. Until someone demonstrates that the algorithm is worthy of note (by, say, being able to factor one of the currently unfactored RSA numbers, or by showing that this algorithm is notably faster than existing algorithms), and more to the point, until a second source (i.e., someone other than the creator of the algorithm) mentions the algorithm in print, it's simply not ready to have its own WP article. — Loadmaster (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I remind the author that he is free to post his algorithm and test results to open forums such as arXiv. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss it. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for this. Very useful. Jzakiya (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)jzakiya


 * Delete Per the above. Especially the fact that it is not Notable. Comment I found this little gem whilst searching for sources on this. I would have added a canvassing tag if it actually got people to vote for him... The comment in that post has a point though, if your algorithm is as wonderful as you claim, why dont't you get it peer-reviewed?Zlqchn (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to have such great powers of internet investigation why did you not present posts such as this Sieve of Zakiya {SoZ} Improved or this here where my work and software has been discussed, used, verified, and benchmarked, and has been established via independent third party testing and benchmarking to be faster than the Sieve of Eratosthenes/Atkins. And you must have found this as well, Roots In Ruby. I am sure you must have seen these in you're snooping activities, yet you make the subjective claim MY article is not Notable. Based on what objective assessment of the content of the article? Unlike Magidin, who has shown integrity and consistency in not addressing the content of the article but has cited only "OR" on a purely policy basis as the reason for deletion, you, and some others, have engaged in a game of "piling on", looking for any other spurious reason for deletion. It is so sad that it appears the natural instinct of some people who have commented on my article is to attack it instead of taking the time to objectively study and understand it. There are 3 years worth of posts on the internet where its discussed and verified by independent assessment, yet that is not considered by people here to establish the verifiability of the work. In the OSS world where software is the "thing" work is verified by its application and acceptance as working, not by people "just" writing papers on it. Did people stand around waiting for independent papers written on the Linux kernel before real programmers and businesses accepted and used it? Of course not. My argument has been that my work has been verified in the real world of software use, testing, verification, and acceptance. Other people have shown and established the efficacy of my work. It is being used by people. It has qualities and features that make it more viable and useful than other methods. Currently, no one who has made a comment on my work herein has still bothered to contact me about it, but are quick to criticize and subjectively characterize it, as well as me personally. Unfortunately, this has been a really disappointing experience for me. Jzakiya (talk) 14:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)jzakiya


 * Actually, I have "made a comment on your work", and you haven't "bothered" to respond. Do try your software with another 18-digit number, 348748375627647227, then try it here. How does it compare? WillNess (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me break this down into several points.
 * Firstly, I will happily admit that, whilst I can understand the overall idea of your research, I am not knowledgable enough in this area to determine whether your article is factually correct. I will assume good faith and assume that it is.
 * Secondly, the first two links you gave are all links to googlegroups, which means that we have absolutely no idea who those people are. They might be experts in this area or they might not be. They are independent third party sources, yes, but not reliable. And I repeat, they have to be Reliable. For all I know, they could just be your sockpuppets (which I am not saying they are, just giving an example) I repeat, forum posts do not count because we have no idea who they are.
 * Thirdly, your third link to scribd seems to be a document you yourself uploaded, making is a self publish source, rendering it useless in establishing notability.
 * Fourthly, I want to re-illiterate what Notability means here at Wikipedia. It means that your article needs to have sources that are independent (so anything you say doesn't count), reliable (so any forum posts don't count) and significant.
 * And about individual points you made:
 * There are 3 years worth of posts 
 * They are forum posts so they are not reliable and thus do not count. To use a poor example, if a fan thread about a fictional character went on for 3 years, do the words of the OP of that thread suddenly become true? No. Same thing here.
 * In the OSS world 
 * Sorry if this seems a bit bitey, but your are currently in the Wikipedia world, not the OSS world. Wikipedia rules determine what you are supposed to do.
 * Did people stand around waiting for independent papers written on the Linux kernel before real programmers and businesses accepted and used it?
 * No, but if wikipedia existed back then, Linux would not get an article before it is referenced in independent papaers.
 * this has been a really disappointing experience for me
 * Me too. Glad we can agree on something. :)Zlqchn (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unlike Magidin, who has shown integrity and consistency in not addressing the content of the article but has cited only "OR" on a purely policy basis as the reason for deletion[...] That is inaccurate. In nominating the page for deletion, in addition to the issue of it being original research, I also explicitly noted problems of notability (in the sense of Wikipedia), problems of verifiability (in the sense of Wikipedia), and conflict of interest issues. I mentioned all four problems, and you have failed to address any of them within the context of the guidelines of Wikipedia, arguing instead about criteria in other settings. Magidin (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Let me add to the statement that presumably independent sources in newsgroups are not considered reliable. Even if they were, the purportedly independent discussion and verification of your work consists of two random guys from the internet.  One of them even says (as has also been said here): "Nice work, but you seem somewhat overenthusiastic about it. Your sieve looks very much like Wheel factorization to me."  Claiming the work of others as your own is considered to be plagiarism, and is very dishonest indeed.  Moreover, it's noted above in this very thread that "[Your sieve] really isn't that good at all."  My advice: peddle your crapware some other place.  We want none of it.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In the name of Julius Caesar, will some brave admin please put this poor "debate" out of its misery? EEng (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Yes, agree with EEng! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 04:10, 18 December 2011 (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.