Talk:The Quintuple

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Deletion?

I would suggest that this article be deleted – No club has achieved the feat and it is based on a couple of news reports—none of which call it "The Quintuple". Exclusion of the Community Shield is purely because Manchester United have not won it this season. If they had we could be sure that it would be included. Why do people think that these "treble/quadruple/quintuple" words apply only to football? Do people not realise that they are real words signifying numbers? Very odd. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic have actually done it, but I agree, this page is ridiculous. Obviously just the product of some manc's strange delusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.71.214 (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what makes the FIFA Cup or the UEFA Super Cup count when the Charity Shield doesn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.71.214 (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Exclusion of the Community Shield is purely because Manchester United have not won it this season." - Yes they did - they beat Portsmouth - 2008 FA Community Shield. That said, until a team actually manages it, I don't think an article is necessary. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 02:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic have managed it in 1967, and there are plenty of sources out there that refer to it as such. They just haven't won the same won Man United are going for. It's probably only because United are going for this specific collection that this whole media invention of 'THE Quadruple' rather than simply calling winning 5 trophies 'a quintuple' has arisen. Before 1999, the Treble was the domestic treble, until they did something else. No way should this article remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.107.90 (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually - the reason that the UEFA Super Cup and Community Shield aren't included is that they are single match events, not tournaments or leagues. If you look at the other articles (Double, Treble, etc.), they seem to indicate quite clearly that these trophies and awards simply do not count toward these achievements. This discussion keeps going around of where to put information like this (this is the third separate article I've seen this in), and as this is not a partisan set of comments (merely a description of what the feat would entail), I say leave it alone. And for all you partisan nut-jobs (on both sides), look at it this way - if ManU manages to pull it off, the article will come back anyway. If they don't, you can use the article to describe their shame of failure Chazerizer (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article has nothing to do with United, it has to do with winning the 5 trophies listed as per media reports that have come about by the possibility of United winning it. It has been discussed before (in Spanish, unfortunately) with respect to Real Madrid. Super cups arn't included as per media, fan and wikipedia consensus on the matter Jw2035 (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the urls for Spanish reports of a Real Madrid quintuple? I am a Spanish speaker so I can use them to add to the article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, not handy on me, was in print - plus it was in Marca, who arn't known for being an impartial, reliable source. Jw2035 (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, many people have regarded trohpies won pre-season do not usually count towards major achievements like the Double, Treble etc. So for the sake of that, ususally the Community Shield does not count towards that achievement. Lpjz290 (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it now. The media orgasm-fest over United's potential achievement has no option but to end now, and this term will never be heard of again. Pointless article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.29.190 (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Not?

a lot of news sources have refered to it as the quintuple:

a ton on google news:

etc...

consensus in the press seems to be that it consists of:

(ie The Quadruple) plus

the FIFA Club World Cup all won within a single season.

supporting arguments to keep this page:

a) it has been heavily referenced and discussed in the media.
b) wikipedia has articles on The Treble and The Quadruple
c) regardless of whether it has been won or not, it is still possible.
d) the FIFA World Cup is counted as part of the International Treble (with the Confederations Cup and the Euros) - why not the FIFA Club World Cup?

arguements against:

a) is the club world cup considered part of the 08/09 season or the 07/08 season?
b) is the CWC classed as a Super Cup (and as per The Treble and The Quadruple not counted)?
c) is the club world cup a big enough trophy?

my preference would be to go with the same criteria as The Treble - 'The Quintuple' for the above combination (FAC, PL, CC, CL, CWC) as per media consensus and referenced heavily, and reserve 'the quintuple' for the winning of 5 lesser trophies in a single season (again, BOTH discounting any super cups). what does anyone else think? Jw2035 (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing we should note about the FIFA Club World Cup is that FIFA also recognise the old Intercontinental Cup as the official predecessor to the CWC. So, again this brings back to the argument of what season it is said to belong to. Ajax could probably even be classed as Quadruple winners for the calendar year of 1972. Also, as this older version of the cup was held in such low regard that Liverpool (twice), Ajax (twice), Bayern Munich (arguably twice) and Notts Fores all refused to play it. Just because FIFA officially recognise it doesn't make it a de facto major tournament, and I highly doubt that had Man United not won it, it would even be mentioned. In fact, if they aren't in it again next year, chances of the British media (based on '06 & '07) even giving the competition any sort of TV coverage is minimal. For all your arguments against, I'd say the first question is slightly debatle and circumstantial, it is a 'Super Cup' (well if the Screen Sport Super Cup isn't - which you already argued was, doesn't count, this can't either). It's not a big enough trophy. In answer to your arguments for: I've never heard it being called THE Quintuple, though I could be wrong. There may as well be an article for Sextuples or more (one domestic case is Linfield in the 1920's and again in 1961/2). Also, why can't Celtic's 1967 side be used as an example of a Quintuple if United's can? Sure they didn't win the World Club Cup, but they won the Glasgow Cup (which was a first team competition at the time and took the same amount, or more matches to win). Your final point really again points back to how much prestige you think the Club World Cup holds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.196.157 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first point of which season it belongs to Manchester United also Managed to win the Intercontinental cup in 1999 (the renamed version of the old world club cup). I have never heard the media or any United fans refer to this as a Quadruple year. The consensus using this logic is that the World Club cup belongs to the season in which it is competed for. The Feat of a quintuple in this context becomes all the more significant as it requires a team to win the Champions League/European cup in consecutive seasons.

In answer to your other point about 1967 and the Celtic team I have never seen a source refer to it as a quintuple year.

FWIW I think the use of the definite article implies an ultimate achievement. The Treble (or The Quadruple) are quite reasonably defined as being League, Europe, Domestic Cup 1 (Domestic cup2). Therefore "The" Quintuple should be as above plus WCC. "A" quintuple may therefore be defined as winning 5 major trophies in the same season. See treble article introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statto999 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really up to us to decide what does or doesn't constitute a quintuple. The term has been used in the media and we can only work from what has been said there. Any theories, no matter how logical, are merely speculation or original research. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SFB

The irony of your statement is that so much of the media is also opinion, speculation or original reasearch. If a sportswriter gives a definition of quintuple no matter how illogical then it's ok but if somebody on here does then it's not! I'm not saying you're wrong in what you've said (it isn't really up to us to decide) but the limitations of relying on the written press that is searchable online is obvious. :-) Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statto999 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the system is not infallible, but the prevailing view of the media/literature must be described. For example, if one lunatic Daily Mail writer decides to write in all seriousness that a quintuple can only be won be a team of giraffes, then we can safely ignore it. If the majority of the media suddenly took up this position in seriousness then, by all means, the article would have to reflect that. The way to avoid this is to refine what the idea of a "reliable source" is. For instance, I almost never use blog/web/tabloid sources on football articles because they tend to be a load of cobblers (except when you need to find out about a WAG's wedding day/baby etc). After all, opinion and original research are what makes the media possible. It's just that, the majority of the time, a serious sports writer will have something more pertinent to say than your average IP editor on a wiki football bio. No? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 09:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making note of first popular usage

I believe that the article should state when the term first came into popular usage: namely, in reference to a possible Quintuple victory which was widely noted in the press following Manchester United's FIFA Club World Cup and League Cup victories. Jw2035 reverted these edits under the rationale that it is a personal attack. I think that Manchester United should be noted as being the first subject of the terminology. The fact is that the term originated in the media's description of Manchester United 2008–09 season and that is worthy of inclusion, and the reason why this article passes the threshold of notability. I disagree that mentioning it is "partisan vandalism". Sillyfolkboy (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel that right now its unnecessary long, I don't think there is anything wrong with cutting it back and noting when and why the term popped up. I don't think its about Man Utd because of it. chan dler ··· 08:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've readded the first popular usage of the term. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 23:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to note any predecessor tournaments? The reality is that the Quintuple cannot consist of a win from a predecessor tournament as no such achievement was completed at the time of the those competitions, thus rendering the former tournaments' inclusion in a Quintuple impossible. For comparison, the 2040 Olympic Summer Games cannot be held in Rhodesia. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 02:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet point list

What does this part actually bring to the article? It is merely repeating what the first paragraph says but in a different format. I've removed it before but it keeps popping back in. Do others agree with its removal? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 18:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I propose this be merged with the Quadruple, since both are rather short articles and could easily be merged into one coherent article defining the different achievements in football. This would also open op for the inclusion of the sextuple, which was deleted rather inconsistently. Sandman888 (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]