Deletion of Sieve of Zakiya

Comment: Seems to be .  I could find no reference to this anywhere in the scholarly literature
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:MADEUP)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)

Comment: in the absence of evidence of sufficient independent coverage per otability (and with  and  as contributing factors
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:COI||WP:OR)

Comment: Per the above. Especially the fact that it is not |Notable. '''Comment''' I found this little gem whilst searching for sources on this.http://www.pclinuxos.com/forum/index.php?topic=100598.0 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)