"I think this is important" is not a valid argument 

Your response to multiple editors' tagging your pages for deletion has been "the work of Dr. Adoni is now superior" with elaboration.  That doesn't work on Wikipedia.  It's not enough for you to argue, however strenuously, that this work is really important.  You instead must cite reliable, independent sources (what are those?  see WP:V) to support the claims.    

You and everyone deleting the 8 Prime Spirals are all LIARS the original article was CITED it cited peer level speed tests of all the top prime algorithms.

Yet you twits claim not verified. BS. I VERIFIED MY CLAIMS.

This is why the world of Academia considers wiki to be run by clueless power hungry twit mods that know nothing about academia.

READ THE CITES IN THE ARTICLE YOU TWITS DELETED

I shouldn't even be wasting my breath on such nazi censoring worms.

PUT THE PAGE BACK it was citd to GITHUB speed tests. The new Prime Spirals beat all the other prime algorithms, and wiki has pages for the slower prime algorithms.

PUT IT BACK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_prime_spirals

GITHUB is where the tests were done and not one real mathematician or computer programming expert question the results since anyone can duplicate them from the open source software.

https://github.com/evandrix/Splat/tree/master/code/demo/pyprimes-0.1.1a/pyprimes-tests

https://mail.python.org/pipermail/tutor/2011-December/087209.html

So the original article CITED major outside sources to PROVE THE CLAIMS

  drprinceton