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 no consensus. –MuZemike 23:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Layman[edit]

Layman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article does not cover the concept of being a non-expert, but a particular term, of dubious notability. I believe it should be deleted, and replaced with a redirect to Laity, as this article covers the concept of Laypeople as non-clergy. S Larctia (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A dictionary type entry with no real subject. North8000 (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe this could be revised into a religion article treating the older sense of the word: a non-clergyman or person not subject to vows like those of monks or nuns. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mention in the nomination statement, we have an article about that at Laity. --S Larctia (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • We might as well make it into a disambargation page linking to Laity, Lay judge and Lay magistrate.TMCk (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't heard or read the word "Layman" refer to a lay judge or magistrate. If it used, it would be more appropriate to have the disambiguation at Layperson, a more gender neutral term. --S Larctia (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would support that assuming layman would be redirected to layperson.TMCk (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Lay, which is a DAB not unlike that described by TMCk. Cnilep (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It provides some background information. Biophys (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOTDIC. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate - certainly not a keep; unsourced and essentially a dicdef. However, a redirect to Laity would be misleading as they are different concepts. A disambiguation page looks the best way forward. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2011 (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.