Deletion of James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher

Comment: G3 and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:MADEUP)

Comment: I just added nine |reliable sources and expanded the article a bit. Some of the references ''use'' the sentence instead of ''discussing'' the sentence (and are included in the article to show various ways the sentence is used), but overall, I think notability is established.  If you want more, try looking through the 99 Gbooks hits for http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&lr=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Had+had+had+had+had+had+had+had+had+had+had&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_isbn=&as_issn= "Had had had had had had had had had had had". I am very much in agreement with Uncle G's comment above that this is part of a wider subject of Repetition in linguistics, and would be equally satisfied if this is merged to an article like that. —&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: That it is interesting is not a reason to keep it, see .  At least two of the sources are simply using the word problem, not actually providing notable coverage *about* the problem.  I'm sure a lot of elementary school math books contain the problem 5 times 6, but that doesn't make 5 times 6 notable on its face
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INTERESTING)

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)