This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook European history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I came across this while doing NPP. I did some research to see if I could justify removing the PROD. I could not because I could find lots of discussions of the indvidual books, which as RebeccaGreen has just shown are each individually notable, but no sources suggesting the series as a whole is notable. As notability can't be inherited, or in this case the opposite of that, I ended up leaving the PROD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I have noted in some of the reviews that they mention the series as a whole - I have not yet attempted to add any evaluations, either of the individual books or the series, from the reviews.

I would also note that WP:NBOOK states:

"A book that meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in this or any other subject-specific notability guideline, and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article.

This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."

This seems to me a good instance where one article on the series may be better than 7 or more separate articles on the individual books. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the newness of the series and its academic bent I think the idea that one article on the series encompassing all the books rather than individual ones on the books is a strong one. Good enough for me to remove the PROD and mark it reviewed with NPP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]