Deletion of Determination of the day of the week

Comment: per . In this case, copy editing to simply remove/reword the how-to content in the article into encyclopedic style is superior to outright deletion. Also, a significant amount of information in the article ''is not'' comprised of how-to content
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: Certainly. However the article has significant content that is not in how-to format, and sources were provided based upon alternate search terms to suggest that alternate search terms are providing hits for this topic. This article can be rewritten so that it does not run afoul of , and it appears that additional sources are available to aid in doing so
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTHOWTO)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTHOWTO)

Comment: while I agree the first third of the article is written in the form of general instructions and falls under , there is useful information in the second half. If someone was prepared to re-write it to explain how mathematicians have found various solutions to the problem (properly sourced), the article could be salvageable. With the original research and without sources, the article is just going to remain a difficult battleground for edit wars
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: While Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, descriptions of algorithms are perfectly acceptable; this is an article on day of week algorithms. Day of the week is a notable concept and so are algorithms for calculating the day of the week; such algorithms are needed for most calendrical calculations, manual or computational. Because the topic is notable and AfD is not for article cleanup (see  for details), this article should be kept. That said, the article does have weak points; the lead and Determination of the day of the week#Useful concepts|Useful concepts section are essay-like and need cleanup. But the subsequent sections, with concise descriptions of various algorithms, along with some references, seem fine
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTFORCLEANUP)

Comment: Does not fall under 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTHOWTO)