I cited several references from at least somewhat authoritative sources that use "light" to refer to all wavelengths, not just the visible ones. If you've got sources that contradict that, then please post them. Otherwise, to my mind, it's you (about whom I know nothing) vs. NASA and the Georgia State University Department of Physics and Astronomy. No offense intended, but in that contest, I'll accept NASA's and GSU's use of the term "light" as being more authoritative, although I recognize that the pages I cited seem intended for general public consumption rather than for use by scientists.
Let's stick to the scientific definition of 'light' and some logic, and let's forget the big names for a moment. We both could cite many sources where the term 'light' is used and just as many where the term 'visible light' is used. The internet is full of both, and even some dictionaries show both terms. I don't disagree that big names use the term 'visible light' in casual descriptions. The term is used all over, but that doesn't make it scientifically correct. I'm merely saying that is a sloppy and description, best left to general conversation.
One of the best sources for optical fundamentals is 'The Principals of Optics' by Hardy and Perrin. On page one, they define light as:
'The term 'light' is used to describe radiant energy that is capable of affecting our sense of sight.'
'Physiscs' 2nd Edition by Tipler states:
'Electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths in the range of about 400 to 700 nm, to which the eye is sensitive, is called light.'
(note: no mention of 'visible light', and the sentence shows how silly that would be)
The Oxford Dictionary defines 'light' as:
'The natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible.'
Webster's simplified definition surprised me:
'Something that makes vision possible'
Nevertheless, they all agree that light and vision are inseparable connected. If light is visible radiation, then there is no such thing as 'invisible light' and also no need for the term 'visible light', since all light is visible by definition.
By the way, if you look at Hardy and Perrin, then the term 'UV light' or 'infrared light' is also wrong, because they don't affect our sense of sight. I'm sure that you find many reputable sources who got this one wrong too.
The above error is the reason for my insistence. The danger is not in calling 'light' needlessly 'invisible light'. The danger is to make a grammatical extrapolation from it and wrongly referring to 'UV light' instead of 'UV radiation'. I don't reject trustworthy references, but they still have to withstand the challenge of logic, NASA included.
However, you are correct that the term 'visible light' is very common and that I lost the fight against the mutilation of language and NASA. Oh, well.