Deletion of List of largest National Football League trades

Comment: as well. In my opinion the entries on the list definitely pass . The two criteria that NLIST offers are notability of the individual entries and reliable sources verifying they are members of the group. Certainly the vast majority of players pass  in their own right, and they are all verifiably employees (or former employees) of the NFL and members of the NFLPA. The trades themselves also pass both criteria; not all are notable enough for their own article, but they only need to be notable {{tq|as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article}}, and I would be surprised if any NFL transaction involving a notable player were missing from his article. Regarding their membership in a group, they are all definably NFL trades: each is a transaction among NFL teams involving employees of those franchises. Furthermore, the list itself passes : an accepted criterion is that {{tq|it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources}} (emphasis in original); Googling something like "biggest trades in NFL history" (most lopsided trades, dumbest trades, you name it) brings up a crapton of results from a multitude of prominent reliable sources. These sources all slice and dice this sort of content constantly, especially in the offseason when there's not much to talk about other than player movement. Now this exact list may or may not have been discussed, but certainly trades in general are discussed as a group ''ad nauseam''; what this list does is choose a specific set of trades. And speaking of selection criteria, these seem fine to me, with the exception of the minimum number of involved players/picks. However, that's merely a cleanup issue, as the list already has a ''de facto'' criterion of 10 (which keeps the list nice and manageable). I think if we add that to the article, we can probably speedy keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NLIST||WP:SPORTSPERSON||WP:LISTN)

Comment: Per , a list is considered notable "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Searches here reveal a number of reliable sources that discuss NFL trades involving the most players. Separate from the Bleacher Report article discussed above, see, e.g., (1) http://www.profootballhof.com/football-history/trick-or-trade/ Pro Football Hall of Fame, (2) https://www.newspapers.com/clip/14970474/the_dickerson_deal/ ''Akron Beacon-Journal'' (1987), (3) https://www.newspapers.com/clip/14970398/walker_trade_big_but_not_the_nfls/ Associated Press (1989, article carried in numerous newspapers, this one provided as example), and (4) https://www.newspapers.com/clip/14970575/telling_trades/ ''The Indianapolis Star'' (1999
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: Fails  in that a "{{tq|list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources}}."  I cannot find multiple independent sources that talk about this grouping of "largest" trades.  The 18-player trade with Herschel Walker gets mentioned a lot on its own (ergo Herschel Walker trade), but I don't see enough sources that talk about other "largest" trades, where the number of involved people is the grouping criteria.  (Lots of sources on other "big" trades, but based on their subjective impact, but little directly on "largest" or sheer size.) Record books by the NFL are not independent.  I would allow this source of http://www.profootballhof.com/news/the-nfl-s-largest-trade/ "The NFL’S Largest Trade" from the Pro Football Hall of Fame (even if I'm not entirely sure if they are funded at all by the NFL
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)