Very nice point southerngirl. Is your point ground / smoothed?
It's easier telling what it's not, than what it is. I'll address some of the types already thrown out in this thread.
It's not Goshen. Goshen are found much further west and may not even be a valid type. Frison (who named Goshen at Mill Iron site) named the type simply because the dates are older than other plainview points. Frison called them Goshen-Plainview because of the possibility that they are the same point but with a long time continuum. Vance Haynes believes they also are the same point type and that the name Goshen should be dropped and Jeb Taylor is very tentative about the association as well (projectile points of the high plains). It is impossible to tell the difference between many samples of Goshen and Plainview, hence the designation Goshen-Plainview by Taylor & Frison.
It's not Conerly. Conerly are the same point type as the Guilford Stemmed, but have a much wider distribution range than the other Guilford. The Conerly designation was given for a more southern type (Georgia) and Guilford stemmed for around the Piedmonts area. As the name implies, both of them typically have a small contracting stem or hafting area - sometimes not very noticeable.
I don't believe it's Candy Creek. Candy Creek usually have recurved sides, not typically convex. However, yours has been resharpened many times and it's possible it could have lost that in the process....but I don't think so.
Now, for the possibilities. It may be an unfluted Clovis, dunno. I think there's a greater chance that it could be a Paint Rock Valley (see Cambron). It's in the right area and seems to meet the criteria. Paint Rock Valley is an early to mid Archaic point and there is a lot of confusion as to where to put them, I think mainly due to them looking so much like other forms / preforms.
