Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intrinsic brightness

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 redirect to Absolute magnitude. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intrinsic brightness

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Very similar to Luminosity. No real added information in this article. Sam-2727 (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, this article should be deleted. It is a confusing term that is supposed to mean the same thing as absolute magnitude (or luminosity), but is simply a more confusing way to express these concepts. The article itself is very badly written and this will only lead to more confusion. There is no need for this article to exist. It could possibly be replaced with a redirect to absolute magnitude. Aldebarium (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable by this title. For example, see Foundations of Astronomy. Deletion is therefore not appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the term is used sometimes but in my view it's really poor practice for a textbook to use this term instead of "luminosity". If the article is kept, it should be completely rewritten for clarity and amended to explain the difference between brightness and luminosity. Aldebarium (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it would make sense to place a {{Duplication}} template at the top of this article. Praemonitus (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either absolute magnitude or luminosity, with a slight preference for the former. This is a rarely used alternative term, and no-one profits from it having its own badly written stub. - Oh look, an Andrew D. "I found a mention on Google, so we need to keep it" !vote... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to absolute magnitude (luminosity would be fine, too). This page gets about 10-11 hits per day, so might be a plausible search term. Directing readers to the more common term for the concept is a worthy use of a redirect and I think it is justified here. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to absolute magnitude. It has been shown above that this term is largely just a lesser-used term for the same concept. There is no reason for a separate article to exist. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2019 (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.