Deletion of Yowani Choctaws

Comment: It needs tagging for wikifying, and other issues.  It also needs the (redlink) categories replaced by legitimate ones.  Nevertheless, provided it is not duplicating an existing article that it ought to be merged with (or vice versa), I see no reason why this should not be treated as a legitimate WP article, even if it did start life as a student essay.  I would agree with the comment about over-rapid AFD nomination, which is liable to put off inexperienced editors from improving their own articles, but this is not the place for such discussion.  Mind you: I know nothing of the subject, but assume it meets  since it cites so many sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Sorry, Wikipedia is not #WEBSPACE|your LiveJournal or a repository for your #OR|personal essays
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT)

Comment: this is a very odd case.  It certainly represents jumping the gun on the nomination.  I disagree with some of the above comments that  is a solely editorial manner.  In the case that the article itself represents a situation where wikipedia is a publisher of first instance, it may be a matter for deletion as well.  As I read the sources I come across some familiar terms in genealogical and tribal research: "unpublished manuscript", "letters", "personal communications".  These primary sources (especially the inaccessible ones) should send alarm bells ringing for editors viewing the content.  We allow sourcing like this in published material because the reputation of the author is staked upon the accuracy and foundation of her claims.  Wikipedia doesn't allow for such an exception so we should be very leery of building articles from those sorts of sources.  To be sure, it is likely to be a verifiable fact that the Yowani Choctaws exist and live in Mount Tabor.  Other verifiable facts are sure to exist in the article.  But we have little chance of fully disentangling those facts from what may be new claims published on wikipedia.  This is an unfortunate result in local (and especially tribal) history.  Look carefully at the article sourcing and at the claims made in the articles before coming to your own decision, but it seems to me that this article consists largely of material where wikipedia is the first publisher, as such we should delete it per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:OR)