Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahad's Constant


 * 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   delete. I'm closing this early. Despite the sudden influx of canevassed supporters, consensus from established editors is very clear that this is unsalvagable original research. While the AfD has only been running a few days, there appears to be no benifit to keep it running longer. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahad's Constant
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability: Abdul Ahad is an amateur astronomer and science fiction writer, not having published any peer-reviewed scientific article on this, nor refer other scientific publications to "Ahad's constant". This and several previous attempts to include material on him on Wikipedia are accompanied by external links to one of his web pages, with promotion of his SF books one click away. See also: Talk:Apparent magnitude and Articles for deletion/Abdul Ahad. -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

ahad break 1

 * Delete. The original venue of publication here appears to have been The Sky This Week, an online-only publication of no significant repute. Given that the current top Google hit on a search for is the Ahad constant's MySpace profile (warning: autoplay music), I'm pretty firmly convinced of the non-notability of this constant. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 09:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: unsourced. -- Jeandré, 2009-03-19t10:18z
 * Neutral. The issue seems to be purely one of sourcing, not the merits of Ahad's constant per se. No barriers to an article on this and the Ahad's sphere once they have been covered in more notable astronomy publications. Pomona17 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.158.72 (talk) 12:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)  — 75.183.158.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Seems like I could as easily have "Nyttend's constant", some random number in some random field. Assuming that the idea of "total integrated brightness" makes sense (I don't know what it means, but I'm not an astronomy person) in this context, it must exist, but existence alone isn't sufficient for an article.  Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The Solar constant is a measure of the light flux of the Sun falling on the Earth at -26.7 magnitudes. this is measuring the light from the rest of the universe (excluding the sun) added together. See Ahad's blog and the comments from his astronomy colleagues there too  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.116.43 (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Keep — 81.107.116.43 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. The article is currently in a lousy shape/format, but more importantly it does not list a single acceptable reference.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

ahad break 2

 * Keep This is an important piece of research.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.237.203 (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — 74.220.237.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep The formula for estimating the magnitude of light should be available to wikipedia readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.35.232 (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — 90.208.35.232 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete: Not only does the article as it stands fail to offer any reliable source citations, Google Scholar has never heard of it. Prominent hits in Google websearch are from blogs and forums, which don't meet RS requirements. May become notable, but is not currently. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason other than dictatorial reasoning for this to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehairymob (talk • contribs) 16:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)  — Thehairymob (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep:This is not just random numbers in a random field as commented by 'Nyttend'. Since you state you are not an Astronomer, with all due respect, do you have a right to vote on a constant you do not understand? I am an Astronomer, and Mr Abdul Ahad's constant is a well-thought and mathematically calculated derivative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.83.63 (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — 90.200.83.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * May I point out that on Wikipedia anyone is entitled to comment and !vote in these discussions? One doesn't have to show one's professional credentials, any more than to vote in a General Election one has to show that one has studied Politics. It's not a voting procedure whereby the number of Keeps and Deletes are counted. It's supposed to be a reasoned discussion, and the arguments put forward are taken into account bearing in mind the relevant Wikipedia policies. Peridon (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.4.45  (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 March 2009 — 82.3.4.45 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

ahad break 3

 * keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by John McCue (talk • contribs) 20:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)  — John McCue (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete per the null result from google scholar - that's a pretty foolproof sign that something is made up. Eusebeus (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just e-mailed David Oesper and asked him to submit the refereed paper to appear on Google Scholar; this won't happen immediately, but it will be there in due course. --Constructive editor (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Request Could you also let us know who refereed the paper? There's no indication I can find in it of referees. Also, the reference to the Cambridge Encyclopaedia: Is it a reference to Ahad being mentioned in there, or merely a reference to some information derived from there? I might be able to check on Monday (if the office don't call me in...) but it would save me a trip to the library if someone has this info handy. Peridon (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP--AHAD IS A VERY INTELIGENT YOUNG SCIENTIST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.166.224 (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — 71.227.166.224 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. I see no coverage of this by reputable astronomers, except those disparaging the result (mainly on discussion forums, so not reliable sources) as pointless. JulesH (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * David Oesper's The Sky This Week has been running continuously for over 10 years and is a notable astronomy publication that is updated weekly. The sky diary appearing there is used by astronomers, both amateurs and professionals alike. -- Constructive editor (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A single, self-published sourced. I don't see any evidence that the articles on this particular site are considered particularly important or reliable by anyone.  I note that the author is at least a professionally-published expert on the topic, having coauthored a paper that appeared in Science, so it squeaks past WP:V, but is still not adequate for the purposes of meeting the guideline WP:N. JulesH (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Regretful Delete as it stands. I feel there could be something of interest in the idea, one I've wondered about myself (idle moment). (With my maths, no chance of working it out.) I am slightly concerned about the referred to page http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent/ahads_sphere.htm which in turn links to 'the refereed paper' - I'm not sure who has refereed it, or where. Most ghits are forums or self published stuff, and I understand that the original publication of the Constant was self published. As a step towards the ladder, self publishing may be necessary. For inclusion in an encyclopaedia, it doesn't really count - until there are plenty of outside references as well. Peridon (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

ahad break 4

 * Keep this article. The best I can tell the ones who want it deleted are those without the background or education to formulate a theory of their own. Ahad must be given credit for the intelligent work he has done. Harpe — E. Don Harpe (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note to visiting voters Rather than just saying 'Keep because Ahad's brilliant and Wikipedians are ignorant', why not prove us ignorant by finding the reliable outside references that we cannot seem to? No matter how brilliant he may be, he won't be regarded as notable here without. We like to see things with proof. Reliable documented proof. Not blogs or forums (with certain rare exceptions). Peridon (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not a forum but an encyclopedic endeavor and the public deserves the opportunity to read about this scientific thought.  It may then be debated in other venues.  Here, it should remain.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.39.189 (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)  — 67.233.39.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep - the article appeared as barely a one line stub and was nominated for deletion so rapidly without the chance for any editorial expansion, suggests a conflict of interest amongst Wikipedians to get rid of it pretty pronto. The rule book does state somewhere that new articles should not be nominated for deletion until they are sufficiently fleshed out so as to make their worth more established -- Constructive editor (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has been here for two weeks before being nominated for deletion. Regarding interests: the following diffs, all on different articles, are examples of material on Abdul Ahad, added or re-instated by Constructive editor. Also see this version of Constructive editor's talk page. -- Crowsnest (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * the guidelines clearly state that unsourced articles may be subject to deletion and original thought/research or private theories are a mandatory reason for deletion. There is no "grace period" needed for that. In any case the listed for deletion process still allows at least 7 days to fix shortcomings of the article, but that doesn't seem to happen here either anyhow. Please read What Wikipedia is not --Kmhkmh (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

ahad break 5

 * Keep Other wise scientists have been doubted. We need to encourage ideas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.158.72 (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — 75.183.158.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * A double entry: also on 12:19, 19 March 2009. -- Crowsnest (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP All theories should be available for discussion and review.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.179.52.230 (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC) — 4.179.52.230 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: As already pointed out, this is not a voting process, but the aim is to build consensus (see e.g. WP:CONSENSUS). It may also be helpful, before contributing, to have a look at WP:AFD and WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- Crowsnest (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.231.163 (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC) — 71.110.231.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * comment: This "keep spam" is kinda close to vandalism and doesn't really increase the article's chances either. Note that WP is an encyclopedia and not popularity contest.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Is the policy here to recognise only the deletes and ignore the keeps?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.35.232 (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * comment: Hi- the policy is to assess both keep and delete comments, to see how far they engage with our consensus-based policies on the encyclopedia's scope: specifically notability, verifiability, and sourcing standards. The deletion discussion is a place to assess an individual article's compliance with those policies. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Regretful Delete - while Ahad might have some potential in the future, neither this "constant" nor its creator are notable, yet. So I would delete and salt, but not "indef salt" it.  This idea must be published elsewhere first, then be added to Wikipedia.  I would love to publish some of my own ideas here, but WP is not a publisher of original research.  Good luck to Ahad and his friends. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, Ahad might get to have his own article someday. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete An irretrievably vague definition ("total integrated brightness of the universe" ???) and no reliable sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're 2 light years out from the solar system in space. You hold out the palm of your hand in front of you. Could you hope to see it? Is there enough star light shining onto the palm of your hand? The only way you can answer this question is by evaluating Ahad's constant at that vantage point in space :) Constructive editor (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Why "2 light years out from the solar system" ? Why not at the galactic core ? Why not in inter-galactic space ? Why not in a molecular cloud ? Is it only a measure of visible light intensity - if so why ? Like I said - irretrievably vague definition. At best this gives you a measure of the local density of stars and the transparency of the local interstellar medium at a given wavelength - so not a "constant" at all. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Being 2 light-years out removes the contribution of light from the sun to the extent it becomes just another star in the interstellar sky. Why does this equation measure flux only in visible light? Well the answer is pretty simple. If you are trying to "see" the palm of your hand with your eyes, I doubt very much if you would be quantifying the X-ray flux :) Is it a "constant"? For the total amount of visible light illuminating the Earth, excluding the solar contribution, yes it is a true constant. For measuring the distance of the Ahad radius, you'd use this constant, but for pretty much everywhere else in the universe the number would be different.Constructive editor (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment My point is that none of the extra conditions you have added (2 lights years out from the solar system, visible wavelengths) are in the definition as it appears in the article. Now, if you add those conditions (citing a reliable source, of course) then you would have a definition that is a bit more precise - but it is then too arbitrary to be useful. Anyway, this is all academic until/unless an independent, reliable source is provided for this usage of the term "Ahad's constant". Gandalf61 (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you actually ARE 2 light years out, why don't you just look? Besides which, at 2 light years, you must be in or just outside a space craft. Nearest known planet outside our system is about 4 light years. And you'd have to have the catalogue of stars visible from that point, although it shouldn't be too much different that close to here - things get rather different closer to the centre of the galaxy and out on the fringes. Don't get me wrong. I think there could be some use in this thing - perhaps in a totally different area of study. Unfortunately, potential is not for encyclopaedias. Please do read the policies. If you don't like them, start another encyclopaedia. If you agree they're the rules one has to abide by, FIND THE REFERENCES we keep on about. And don't keep parroting 'keep keep'. Discuss and REFER. Peridon (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Catalog data for stars in this part of the Milky Way galaxy is now being mapped to the n-th degree of detail since precision astrometry missions, such as Hipparcos. Databases that hold the apparent magnitudes, absolute magnitudes and distances to stars relative to Sol can be used to compute their light contribution at any given point in 3D space, by applying the distance-luminosity equations and running them through the algorithm of Ahad's constant (or Ahad's magnitude for want of a better term).Constructive editor (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

ahad break 6

 * keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.4.45 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 20 March 2009
 * see also 82.3.4.45's "keep" on 20:01, 19 March 2009. -- Crowsnest (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do I get the feeling that some of them aren't reading what we say? (sigh...) Peridon (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This: Cast your votes for "Ahad's constant"! may be part of the explanation. -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Geez i can only hope such things won't become a popular phenomenon for social networks and blogs.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice one. Thanks. I've posted over there and hope they read stuff on their board if they don't here! Peridon (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No scholarly citations, no book citations, and virtually all of the only ~170 Ghits are to some kind of self-published source. Obviously non-notable. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I had a look at the thread that Crowsnest linked, and there's an entry where he spells out a list of links that were supposed to prove notability for this article.  Four of them are the same article, written by the same person, and published in four different websites/newspapers.  Another one is a non-reliable source, and most of the others talk about Ahad the person, not the constant.  I think it's safe to say that not even Mr. Ahad can establish this article's notability at this point in time.  Matt (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * keep it here : hiya, i'm one of Abdul Ahad's myspace friends :) this is a good physics invention, don't make any sense to hit delete on it. See the cambridge star atlas list on his paper . k bye!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nozomi44 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The paper gives four valid references, including the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Stars.  The deletion criteria is flawed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.152.102 (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)  — 24.61.152.102 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment The deletion criteria may be flawed. (Incidentally, they are plural. Criteria is followed by 'are' not 'is'. A single one is a criterion.) That's not the point of this discussion. If you don't like them, post a suggestion for improvement in the appropriate place - or go to somewhere that accepts everything regardless. Using this argument here is a bit like telling the traffic cop that there shouldn't be a speed limit just there because it's a good bit of road. He may agree with you, but you still get the ticket. The point of this discussion is notability under the current criteria. And if you think other articles fail, do what we do. Tag them. Peridon (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Ahad's Constant has acquired distinction through his writings and popular culture. Most obscure scientific numbers are only confined to academic journals. This deserves a WP entry for gaining notoriety in a different kind of way. 74.220.237.224 (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)hjw
 * Interesting read Well, I thought so... http://www.hilpers.org/472413-scientist-quantifies-the-darkness-of Please read right down. Peridon (talk) 15:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly original research. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Zetawoof. Flunks WP:NEO. THF (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete single line article lacking the multiple RS references required for WP:N. Artw (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The concept may have some notability (although it's difficult to trace, not having a well-defined name), but Ahad does not, including not being associated with the concept by a reliable source.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And I was here from ANI, as well, but I read the article and the reference before commenting. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete- clearly original research. The multitude of SPA votes should be ingored totally because of the shameless canvassing going on (well done THF for finding this). Reyk  YO!  00:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, Crowsnest should get the credit. THF (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - the original article seems to be this one, incl. some references to WP and also linking to some other sites,   . His constant, first introduced in 2004 has only 167 Ghits five years later, so it's either widely ignored or not notable enough. -- Avant-garde a clue - hexa  Chord 2  00:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The first three links are author's (Ahad) own creation and the last two references more legitimate refs but do not refer the brightness magnitude in space as Ahad's constant.--Louisprandtl (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm here from ANI, where this was just brought up along with evidence of canvassing. This doesn't meet WP:NEO and the article as stands is original research.  Them  From  Space  00:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete- Saw this on ANI. The article [] in the bibliography links to Ahad's paper which was self published. The author self proclaimed it to be peer reviewed. It has no reference or links to reputable Astronomy journals. The author has no basic astronomy training, and lacks basic knowledge of light transmission and intensity in space. The closest research in the area is probably Night Sky Luminescence in Space --Louisprandtl (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete (I also spotted this on ANI) Ahad needs to write a paper with his theory and get it published on some notable astronomical journal. As it stands, it seems that the theory has been only mentioned on an online astronomy colum http://www.skythisweek.info/ from David Oesper, who has co-authored a university press book on observational astronomy (this indicates that it's not a hoax, but it still needs to be cleared throught some peer-review process to make sure that it's correct :P ). It's nice, but not it's enough notability at all to make an article on it as a notable theory.


 * P.D.: he also mentions "Journal of British Astronomical Association (Letter in Vol 115(5), Oct 2005)", but's that's a letter sent to the journal, not an article, (maybe he even sent it himself and all). Looking at his self-compiled list of places where his theory is mentioned (see fifth comment in link) he lists a fantasy novel written by himself ("First Ark to Alpha Centauri") and wikipedia itself.... The rest fall somewhere between "local source" and "talks about the theory only in the context of covering the author, while making a namecheck of all the authot has done". I doubt that any of those show actual notability for the theory. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment for closing admin, please read carefully Note that several of the keep votes appear to be the result of canvassing at this page. Note also that the first post there is apparently from Ahad himself, who says, "I'm actually curious as to who created the article so soon. Was it anybody from this forum I wonder? I was hoping it could have waited until more reliable sources became available."  He did not, however, attempt to dissuade people from casting "keep" !votes. Looie496 (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The thread, including its title Cast your votes for "Ahad's constant"! stating the purpose, was created by Ahad himself, see . -- Crowsnest (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * delete one self-published source (to "ahad") no other information allowing for verification, etc... Should have been speedy.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete All the references are to blogs. This was already kicked out of Scientific_phenomena_named_after_people last month. --John Nagle (talk) 05:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and Salt. I'll go one further than most here. This article,even at it's >2kb most robust, lacked any sources which demonstrated, within the article, any notability or significance. All we have is one man's claim that he's done something truly notable; Four hours after a sack full of taco bell, I can make the same claim, but it's equally without merit. As others have mentioned, off Wikipedia, there is no reliable sourcing by people with the scientific acumen to evaluate the concept and declare it fundamentally sound; above, one Wikipedia editor notes that even the opposite has only occurred once. Combine that with the rampant Canvassing and meatpuppetry occurring, and SALTing becomes a reasonable option to preclude this material being spammed to Wikipedia over and over; no doubt the editor who created the page has an off-wiki copy and will send it out to ensure all those solicited voters restart the page. SALT it. Should someone find him to be correct, we can unSalt after a VP or AN request. ThuranX (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete no coverage in third-party reliable sources has been presented, article fails WP:N. Hut 8.5 10:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a discussion going on at the site linked above by Crowsnest ( http://www.publishedauthors.org/chatter-box-f3/cast-your-votes-for-ahad-s-constant-t1979.htm ), where some of the 'fan club' are more seriously taking in what we are saying. The possibility of userfication has been raised, in response to a query as to whether we have an 'unverified' category. Mr Ahad hasn't yet put in an appearance in this part of the debate, and nor has the gentleman who claims the creation of the article. Peridon (talk) 11:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on previous research into the same subject. The non-refereed letter, mentioned by Enric Naval, was indeed written by Abdul Ahad and can be obtained from the British Astronomical Association website: . What is very interesting, is the Usenet discussion (at sci.astro.amateur) mentioned at the bottom of Ahad's letter. In this discussion, in March 2004 at apparently the start of Ahad's calculations, William C. Keel gives references to published related work, from which he estimates the integrated brightness as -5.85. His estimate is based on:, pages 22–24, where the results of a calculation similar to Ahad's are presented (but also giving more detail, for instance the dependence of brightness on galactic latitude). So, as far as I can see (I am not an astronomer), Ahad is not the first in doing such a research. I am afraid he will have little chance that terms like "Ahad's constant", "Ahad's magnitude", "Ahad's radius" or "Ahad's sphere" will become common phrases in science. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The quantity determined by Abdul Ahad in his original line of inquiry was the brightness of the interstellar night sky, when seen from a hypothetical vantage point going 2.2 light-years beyond the Solar System. And perhaps more importantly, the level of illumination that an observer would experience from such locales. That is a rather different sphere of thought from saying "how much do all the stars added together contribute to the night sky brightness here on Earth" (F.E. Roach et al in the book you mention). Just a small observation. - Constructive editor (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.