`  == discussion of Rule #1, aka bluelinks-only ==  Hi ObieGrad  while I agree with your goals of keeping the article reliable, I think your rules are problematic in the details.  First of all, under rule#1 above, you've deleted a bunch of Fiorina endorsements, which were 99% reliably sourced, on the basis of them being ``not notable`` because there is currently no wikipedia article on the endorser (i.e. the person making the endorsement).  This not an uncommon article-specific tradition for list-articles, per guideline WP:CSC, but it does violate policy WP:NOTEWORTHY, and in this particular case (lists of presidential party endorsements) I believe in a crucial fashion.     Wikipedia should reflect what the sources actually tell us, and not what other articles on wikipedia tell us, right?  There are going to be plenty of reliably-sourced endorsements from swing-state and early-caucus-state legislators.  Per WP:POLITICIAN guideline, these types of folks are quasi-inherently ``notable`` in the wikipedia sense; even though they might not currently have an article, because they are state legislators, elected in a public campaign, making laws with broad impact as their job, and often trying to get their name in the news, plus as part of their job getting their name in a multitude of government-website sources, they are presumed (under the guideline) to be wiki-notable.  Thus, if you look at New_Hampshire_General_Court#External_links you will see that only about 10% of the state reps have a dedicated article, the rest being redlinks, and the vast majority of the bluelinks being stubs, with the exception of Gene Chandler and a couple others.  That's not because articles on each NH rep cannot be written, but simply because they haven't been written yet.   Example#1, in particular, one of the dozen endorsements you deleted was cited material showing Will Infantine as an endorsee from Fiorina's list, because he does not yet have a wikipedia article.  Even a cursory web-search shows that such an article could be written; he made national news in 2014 over comments he made about salary for women versus salary for men, and as a committee-chair in the state legislature he has about a dozen RS in local newspapers for other state-level stuff he has been involved with.  There are a few cites on his involvement with presidential-level inside-baseball-politics during 2012 and 2016, where New Hampshire plays an oversized role, see United_States_presidential_primary#Iowa_and_New_Hampshire.  Somebody even noted the apparent dichotomy between Infantine's support of Fiorina, the only 2016 wiki-notable republican female potential-candidate besides Sarah Palin (cf Hillary Clinton and Warren plus kinda Gillibrand who are also noted for their gender in RS about the democratic potential-candidates), and his gender-related salary-comments from 2014.  So to my way of thinking, if the New York Times and Weekly Standard and Boston Globe and Mitt Romney campaign think that Will Infantine in particular, and NH state reps in general, are WP:NOTEWORTHY ... then bluelinks-only is probably the wrong rule.    Example#2, you deleted the redlink to Phyllis M. Katsakiores, with the reliably-cited WMUR source that verified the data, as ``non-notable``.  Again, though, the most cursory of googling shows that not only does she have at least as many RS as Infantine does (cf George Katsakiores in local Derry politics and Thomas Katsakiores who is another sitting NH state rep), she has had a wikipedia article since 2011.   Example#3, somebody not yet in the article is Iowa pastor Terry Amann, who is unlikely to have a dedicated wikipedia article (not an elected official or otherwise in the news), but who is identified by WP:RS as being a key influencer specifically for the 2016 presidential contest, and made WP:NOTEWORTHY endorsements in the past 