Deletion of Robert Blair, Minister

Comment: Robert Blair, Minister.  Ministers were more important further back in history than they are today.  Gaelic translation activities may be sufficiently noteworthy to meet , and in my eyes, for now are adequate reasons to keep.  '''Delete''' James S. Johnstone, Minister and Robert S Calderwood, Minister - no assertion of encyclopedic notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: Blair for his literary contributions (but cleanup the article); '''delete'''the other two for failing to meet 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: None of it meets , as far as I can see it lists 7 lines telling about his life, and then one line saying he translated a bible. Not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: all, as failing . If we could verify the idea that he was a major factor in the Bible translation, I might be inclined to reconsider
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: I am extremely confused by this and a couple similar comments at the AfD for the other minister I nominated.  Since when is the rule "if it verifiably exists, it's in??"  A huge proportion of the deletions at AfD are non-notable bands, vanity pages, etc - these people/bands do verifiably exist, but they are so obscure that there's no real benefit to having them.  Do you support keeping such articles?  Would you support keeping an article about me, a humble and insignificant student, were I to create and source it?  I realize  is not official policy, but the idea of having no notability standards whatsoever is pretty bewildering
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: does not meet  criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)