Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmological decade

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 The Five Ages of the Universe. (non-admin closure) CR (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmological decade

[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)

Old article created in 2004. As far as I see, the "Cosmological decade" is not a standard term used in astronomy/cosmology. It seems to be coined in pop science book by Fred Adams and Gregory P. Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe (see f.e. this NYT article [1]). Google Scholar returns only 21 matches for "cosmological decade". Of these, 1 is a book review, 3 are essays, 4 are articles by Adams and Laughlin, 2 are pop science pieces, 1 is a phd thesis in theology, 1 is an msc thesis in the history of cosmology, 1 is some old forum post (why is it even in GScholar?), 1 is a wiki article mirror, 1 is unreachable and doesn't show the term's usage, and only 6 are independent peer-reviewed works, of which 3 are by one author. And I haven't seen any usage of the abbreviation CÐ in reliable sources on cosmology. The article has two references: one is to the original book, another to a paper that has no words "cosmological decade". It might be notable enough to warrant an entry to the glossary of astronomy, but I see no notability for a standalone article. Artem.G (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Artem.G (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the book. Nothing wrong with making up your own units in a book, but if nobody else is using them, there's nothing to build an article out of. ApLundell (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per ApLundell. This is a phrase that has hardly been used outside of a book, and other publications by the authors of that book. This is just another way of saying "lack of significant coverage." Bearian (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because the universe will continue to exist for a very long time to come, we need very large numbers to describe its future. To keep these large numbers manageable, Adams and Laughlin introduced the concept of a cosmological decade as $10 x$ years, in which $x$ indicates the number of the specific cosmological decade. This is an exponential scale, which means […] This period will last until the 14^th cosmological decade […] in the the 35^th cosmological decade […] in the the 131^st cosmological decade […]
— Spier, Fred (2015). Big History and the Future of Humanity (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781118881729., p. 299

A cosmological decade $η$ is defined simply as $η = log10(.mw-parser-output .frac{white-space:nowrap}.mw-parser-output .frac .num,.mw-parser-output .frac .den{font-size:80%;line-height:0;vertical-align:super}.mw-parser-output .frac .den{vertical-align:sub}.mw-parser-output .sr-only{border:0;clip:rect(0,0,0,0);clip-path:polygon(0px 0px,0px 0px,0px 0px);height:1px;margin:-1px;overflow:hidden;padding:0;position:absolute;width:1px}t⁄1 year)$ where $t$ is the conventional cosmic time […] Although it may seem a trivial exercise, the labelling of epochs by cosmological decades is in fact quite [a] useful tool for intuiting the great size of the cosmological future […] We are currently living in cosmological decade roughly $η \approx 10$ […]
— Ćirković, Milan M. (2019). "Stranger things: multiverse, string cosmology, physical escchatology". In Kragh, Helge; Longair, Malcolm (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Modern Cosmology. Oxford Handbooks. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192549976., p. 486
I am pretty sure that a lecturer in Big History at the University of Amsterdam writing in a Wiley science book and a research professor writing in an OUP handbook both count. Uncle G (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the book. The available literature, including the items pointed to above, treat the topic as a thing Adams and Laughlin introduced and do not add significantly to it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2025 (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.