Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quintuple


 * 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.

I'm closing this as no consensus, and as an article I can perhaps see clearly because I do not care very much about either about the subject or the specific question at issue. I don't really see any agreement, and I think both a keep and delete result would be defensible. I suggest that when the current season is over, and Manchester United either does or does not achieve the necessary victories, the situation about the article will be clearer, there will be more sources directly on point, and it will be time for another debate. DGG (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The Quintuple

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not an established term but a neologism. Sources have not referred to it as a capitalised "The Quintuple" and mention winning five cups as a quintuple only numerically (similarly we do not need an article on quintuplets). No team has achieved this feat and the idea is merely the media's prospective forecast for how Manchester United's season could theoretically turn out, thus breaking WP:Crystal. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - regardless of any club fortunes (United or otherwise), winning the quintuple has been clearly defined and discussed in numerous notable media sources and is clearly possible both in England and worldwide. The term has entered the lexicon of English football. 'The Quintuple' may be defined - in the same manner as The Treble or The Quadruple (which by WP:NEO would also have to be deleted as per arguements above) - as winning 5 top-tier trophies in a single season (excluding Super Cups and Charity Shields in the same was as those trophies are exculded by consensus from other trophy multiples). It could not be won before 2000 (and until 2005-present) since the FIFA Club World Cup did not exist, hence it is difficult for any club to have won it given the timescale. The concept itself is seperate from any 'crystal-balling' of United's fortunes in this season and is/should be kept so in the article. Jw2035 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - This is getting silly now. IMO, we should only have articles for The Double and The Treble, with any further multiples expanded upon in the Treble article. Otherwise, in countries where, for example, they have seven or eight competitions to be won, we could end up with articles for the "Septuple" or the "Octuple"! – PeeJay 17:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Which countries, with notable media coverage, have 7 or 8 top tier league and cup competitions in football then, not includign super cups, charity shields or the like? Jw2035 (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was using it as a deliberately silly example to show how these things can get out of hand. However, IIRC, in Wales there are six competitions available to some teams in the North, creating the possibility of a "sextuple". Either way, I think it's daft. – PeeJay 18:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * not top tier if they're only regional. and questionable notability if they're localised to north wales. i see your point on it being daft, but surely The Quadruple and The Treble are equally daft! Jw2035 (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEO would only apply if somebody here had invented the term in response to Man United's season so far. The term is being widely used in the media. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've heard it used for Chelsea in prev seasons, need to track down a few sources though - particularly after the abramovich takeover 129.11.77.197 (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NEO.  Just the media's lazy way of referring to a club (possibly) winning five trophies in a single season.  And let's face it, the FIFA Club World Cup is hardly a top level competition, it's more like a pre-season friendly tournament. If Man United were to lose at Fulham next weekend, we'd probably never hear the phrase again. Black Kite 18:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mickey Mouse Cup is here by the way. 'Pre-season friendly' my foot, and since when do your personal opinions count over notable, well ref'ed media? and if you believe this is WP:NEO, why not The Treble or The Double? Jw2035 (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If Man United were to lose at Fulham next weekend, we'd probably never hear the phrase again - that is WP:CRYSTAL. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * agree with Jmorrison230582 above, you're the one crystal-balling Jw2035 (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was trying to be humorous, but you're also missing the point. The Double, and to a lesser extent The Treble, are well known, referenced, defined and discussed terms. This isn't. WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant to my Fulham comment, the point of which was that the term could well disappear as quickly as it was coined.  This is because as a neologism, it isn't defined - "Quintuple" is only being used in those sources as an alternative phrase for "winning five trophies".  Certainly nowhere is it defined as the those trophies which the article defines it as, which also makes it original research. Compare The Double, which in England has for many years been defined as the League Title / FA Cup. Black Kite 22:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But the event is so rare that the term may be equally rarely used at times where such an acheivement is not possible. This does not make it a neologism. How many times was 'treble' (let alone 'The Treble') used between '77 (liverpool) and '99 (united)? It is clearly defined - even the bookmakers define it - in numerous sources (...nowhere is it defined as the those trophies which the article defines it as... - perhaps try actually reading the citations of which there are a half dozen!). Further, please find me a cited article in The Treble or The Quadruple that goes into in-depth discussion purely on the topic without discussing any team that may, has or could win one? Jw2035 (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read the citations. Nowhere is there a source which states that "The Quintuple is when a team wins trophies A,B,C,D and E". The word is merely being used to indicate that Man Utd could win five trophies this season, which just happen to be those five. To give an example of how it isn't defined, what would've happened if Man Utd had dropped into the UEFA Cup at the group stage this season, and then won that?  Would that still be a Quintuple?  We don't know, and that's because the term isn't defined or discussed - it's merely used as a media shorthand. Black Kite 23:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * and The Treble' isn't? I've never seen the Sun headline 'X wins three trophies!'. You've obviously not read hard enough - i'll let you in on a few more: http://www.skybet.com/skybet?action=GoEvEv&id=11667149 defines it, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/league_cup/7917973.stm in the first 2 paragraphs and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/manutd/4927009/Manchester-Uniteds-quest-for-quintuple-What-are-the-chances.html lays it out in detail wrt United in it. Perhaps your objections are more down to the number of Leeds United articles you edit than anything real? Jw2035 (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you believe my problem with the article is that I support a different club, there seems little point engaging with you any more. I note that you've engaged in this type of incivility before. I think the point is made, anyway. Black Kite 23:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now now, any past disputes i've had in the heat of the moment are nothing to do with this debate. I've made my point, and with the last I seem to have hit the nail right on the head. Jw2035 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom. Timbouctou (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NEO there need to be reliable sources that are substantively about the subject, not just sources that use the word. There do not appear to be sources that are about "the Quintuple" so there should not be an article.Otto4711 (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly disagree, a number of the available articles fully discuss the composition of a quintuple and discuss the subject in context Jw2035 (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - agree with Jw, enough sources 129.11.77.197 (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC) This vote is a WP:SOCK John Vandenberg (chat) 01:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and PeeJay. GiantSnowman 21:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Otto4711 King of the  North   East  21:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also didn't Man U lose in the 2008 UEFA Super Cup meaning that they have already failed to win The Sextuple? King of the  North   East  21:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, since as per consensus on The Treble, The Quadruple and The Double, Super Cups and the like do not count towards any multiple trophy win. And as per WP:NEO as argued above they will have to be AfD'd after this one. Jw2035 (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that nominating either The Double or The Treble at AfD would be regarded as a rather WP:POINT move. Black Kite 23:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm simply stating that these as as much covered by your arguements as this article. I am making my point through discussion as per WP:POINT Jw2035 (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - well known, well covered terminology in English football (plus used in FM!)81.96.246.118 (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC) This vote is a WP:SOCK John Vandenberg (chat) 01:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment- as per WP:NEO In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. This topic is a)notable, b)cited numerous times in reliable sources, c)for which no other acceptable description fits. It is no more a neologism than The Treble, Group of death, Midfield Maestro or any others under Category:Football (soccer) terminology. There are also sources which both use (in discussion, or for gaming purposes - bookies) and which are about the term in describing what the quintuple is, both of which meet WP:NEO. Further, even FIFA uses the term on it's own website as per cited refs. Please consider further before voting for deletion. Jw2035 (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or maybe merge into a suitable Man U article. Sceptre (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, WP:CRYSTAL prevents any merger into a United article Jw2035 (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So what does that say about the article's content? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying merging into a Man United article would be crystal-balling, the article itself need not be any more connected to United than The Quadruple need be connected to Glasgow Celtic Jw2035 (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that all the sources do not discuss "The Quintuple" but rather Manchester United's possibility of winning five trophies this season. That is what should be in that article (i.e. "The press noted that the team could possibly finish the season with an unprecedented five major trophies, but manager Alex Ferguson downplayed the idea."). That is what this article boils down to; that sentence sums up the article's content. I suggest a merge. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems to have been a lot of press coverage on it, not sure if it could be merged into another article? seems useful anyway Kevr22 (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC) This vote is a WP:SOCK John Vandenberg (chat) 01:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete until/if a club actually manages to pull off the feat. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 02:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - possible even if has not been won, also art. on trebles and doubles 91.121.156.130 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC) — 91.121.156.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep* [Until Manchester United loses in a competition in 2009, they are playing for a 5-throphy haul, i.e. The Quintuple. If and when they lose, this should be deleted.  Until then, definately keep.] unclewiker 5/3/09  — 66.216.159.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   John Vandenberg (chat) 01:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary. King of the  North   East  22:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Def Keep - come on united! Xxm85064 (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC) — Xxm85064 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   This vote is a WP:SOCK John Vandenberg (chat) 01:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with above, but article shoudlnt be all about man yoo 129.11.77.197 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Already commented. 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)  This vote is a WP:SOCK John Vandenberg (chat) 01:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Question It has plenty of sources; why couldn't it be merged somewhere? After all, we wouldn't delete quintuplet if it were an article right now.  I can't suggest a good target, as I know virtually nothing about English football.  Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it could be placed in the Carling Cup section of Manchester United F.C. season 2008–09, stating the press reaction to their victory (i.e. the possibility of a quintuple victory) Sillyfolkboy (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject of the article doesn't relate any more to Manchester United than it does to any other club that could potentially be in the same situation. The article should just be deleted. While rare, there is nothing special about winning five trophies in one season. – PeeJay 04:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments above. I think that the article topic matter is misrepresented&mdash;the press coverage is about MU's current season, not "The Quintuple". Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, it really doesn't "exist"... It's just now talked about it... But it's really just an expression instead of "X are going to win five titles this year", also, just personally I would consider the club world cup (and the community shield) more related to the last season, rather than this, but that might just be me and Liverpool have already won fiive (<-the real and only quintuple in my heart!) in a year! ch10 · 12:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Very easily meets WP:N.  Just look at the number of references to this in the media - .  There are literally 1000s of articles relating to this in the last few weeks alone from major media outlets all over the world.  I can't see any basis for this article not being here, without also deleting The Quadruple, The Treble, or The Double. Nfitz (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference is, those are long standing and in common usage, they have all been achieved whereas this "Quintuple" is highly WP:NEO and as many have said, it's rather taking a quadruple and sticking on a micky mouse cup (a cup imo, having more to do with last season than this, seeing it wont be all won in one year but two). ch10 · 05:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is extremely specious and POV. To refer to the FIFA Club World Cup as a micky mouse cup shows extreme Euro-centric (as well as displaying ignorance about the origin of the term "micky mouse cup" - see Mickey Mouse cup) bias; dismissing the highest level of international club football violates WP:BIAS.  The argument that it has more to do with the previous season makes no more sense than saying the Champions League is related to the previous season - as it is; and even if it was true that it belonged to the previous season, that that only changes the definition of "Quintuple", it doesn't have an relevence to the validity of the page itself.  Finally you claim that it is highly WP:NEO, however the widespread use of the term in secondary sources would suggest otherwise. Nfitz (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOT. This term itself has to be analyzed in order to appear on Wikipedia, it cannot be namedropped and get an article. Themfromspace (talk) 04:58, 9 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.