Deletion of Coast Salish people and salmon

Comment: as per ,  and . The problem with this article is summed up neatly by User:Curiocurio who argues above that the article is "presented from a First Nations standpoint which is... more appropriate for this subject than a 'neutral'" voice.  Precisely.  The article, with the exception of a few nods to sourcing, speaks  in a timeless voice, the voice, that is, of a non-linear cosmology attributed to indigenous peoples by anthropologists, a voice in which timeless attitudes ("Salmon are seen by the Coast Salish peoples are beings similar to people but spiritually superior.") are asserted without regard for the NPOV fact that, statistically, contemporary Salish have about the same proportion of skeptics, scientists, evangelical Christians, the religiously indifferent, trendy new-agers and so forth as does the general population.  Who knows if any of them believes that salmon are "spiritually superior"?  Article not only fails to distinguish Salish attitudes and beliefs by era, it fails to distinguish among the distinct Salish peoples.  This is like writing about "Europeans;" it can be done, but an NPOV article would point out that among Salish as among Europeans, different groups  speak distinct languages, eat different foods, preserve the fish they catch in different ways and so forth.  And it totally fails to encounter the fact that foodways, folkways, language and belief systems change over time.  "Salish" itself is a concept and ethnonym imposed by Western culture on a a group of several distinctive indigenous peoples at a particular date.  This article, in short, is neither NPOV nor is it encyclopedia-worthy.  Moreover since using Wikipedia as a SOAPBOX to speak in an imagined and timeless "native" voice appears to be the intention of the article creator, it needs to be deleted. 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSOAPBOX||WP:NOTESSAY||WP:OR||WP:NOTSOAPBOX)

Comment: While NPOV, SOAPBOX, and ESSAY may be an issue, |AFD is not cleanup and that can be addressed by editing the article rather than deleting it. Nobody has presented an argument as to why it fails  or anything else that is actually grounds for deletion instead of cleanup
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP||WP:GNG)

Comment: Nothing that can't be cleaned up. It's a notable enough topic per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)