Deletion of Nia Imara

Comment: Based on the sources on the article, this appears to pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Given that it is the only thing mentioned in the introduction, I assume her status as "the first African-American woman to earn a PhD in astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley" is asserted as her primary claim to notability. I was the first Czech-French woman to attend my school and probably the first of that background to do a lot of niche stuff in France & Belgium. Essentially this idea that you deserve an article just because you are the first person of your specific background to do a very specific thing at a very specific place is something that is apparently ''only'' applied to Americans here, and never accepted for people from other countries. I'm not quite sure about notability, though; it looks like a case of  to me, although there is some coverage and she seems to be well on track to become notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: As David Eppstein said above, it's probably |too soon for , but there's enough for the GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:PROF)

Comment: Enough coverage of her from enough independent sources for GNG. Netoholic's reasoning that "none of this go towards NACADEMIC" is ridiculous and wrongheaded: these sources are mostly unrelated to her academic accomplishments (which are probably ) but her accomplishments as an artist. Also, I think that this pattern of targeting Jesswade's creations of articles on women (this is now the fourth such AfD to be created within a span of days) is an extremely unhealthy pattern that displays the institutional misogyny inherent in Wikipedia. We can and should do better than that
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: The only  reliable sources are a local papers (Mercury News, East Bay Express), a podcast (65 Days of Astronomy), and Smithsonian mag. None of these go to supporting a criteria listed at  ("first X to receive a PhD at Y" is not a criteria). The Smithsonian ref is the briefest of name drops, and doesn't support the line it cites (I've tagged it)(fixed). The two articles in local papers are primarily about one event (an exhibition) and don't satisfy . The podcast appearance is a plus on both artist and academic ends, but altogether with the other independent sources I don't think passes the bar of . If other independent sources are found, I could be convinced to swing toward keep and give the article more time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:INDEPENDENT||WP:NACADEMIC||WP:NARTIST||WP:SIGCOV)