Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aussie Nibbles

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 12:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aussie Nibbles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This series is nostalgic for me, yes. And a cute idea ('nibbles', 'bites', and 'chomps' based on reading comprehension level). However the fact is that it's not notable. Plus it's a spin-off of another series (Aussie Bites) that doesn't even have it's own article due to I suspect similar issues. "05:15, 11 January 2014 Mark Arsten (talk | contribs) deleted page Aussie Bites (Expired PROD, concern was: Topic is not notable)". Fails WP:GNG. Delete.

Also nominated:

Coin945 (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No AfD notification templates were placed on the additional articles nominated, and their creators were not notified. This discussion therefore needs to be kept open for at least another week to give editors with an interest in those pages the chance to participate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.