Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher


 * 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   Keep but preferably merge whenever a good target is decided upon. This is a notable example of an interesting topic, but it would be better placed and avoid redundancy in a larger article about the topic with a number of examples. Fram (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

had had had had had had had had had had had

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

Individual "word puzzles" are generally not notable enough for their own articles, and this article does nothing to convince otherwise. The two online sources simply present the puzzle and the solution, and are not what are considered reliable sources anyway. The book cited is simply the book where the phrase originally appeared. The section on "extendability" (which I don't believe is an actual word at all) appears to be original research. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete it's an example of a concept that may or may not be notable. The example itself is not notable. Here are some others that need to be deleted:  List of linguistic example sentences. Drawn Some (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Individual linguistic example sentences should not have their own articles. Note that it would take an unusually large number of redirects to enable any particular user to find this article -- not just because of doubt over the correct number of hads in the sentence, but also because any two names might happen to be substituted for James and John. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or cleanup I did find a couple of sources though a Google book search (link), none of them actually used the sentence in the exact same way that Wikipedia does. That, however, does not necessarily equate deletion if some sources can be found using different variations, etc. However, I don't logically see that happening. Tavix | Talk  03:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment if you keep this one then get ready for "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck....." because it's redlinked. Drawn Some (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge It doesn't seem notable enough for it's own article, but perhaps it can be merged. Basket of Puppies  04:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or delete per above. JBsupreme (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm not sure what's wrong with those refs: I looked at the first one and it does show that the the phrase is popular. The inclusion criteria require coverage in multiple third-party sources and this is covered. If the unverified content is challengable, we should remove that content. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is with the title more than anything. Whilst the eleven "had"s in a row are universal, the things before and after them are not.  (Alan Dundes has "John where James", for example.)  Thus this title is not what readers will be looking up.  However, that's solved by renaming the article (to take the extraneous non-universal material out).  Zain Ebrahim111 is right that there are plenty of sources that cover this subject.  They don't cover it in much depth, though.  However, one, a paper by Jean Aitchison, shows that there's a wider subject here of repetition in linguistics, which can include this as well as sentences such as "The bus the car the tram hit hit hit the van.".  We get from here to there in the fashion that Notability and User:Uncle G/On notability prescribe for articles where the sources exist but they discuss the subject as but one thing in a wider context, by keeping, renaming to that self-same wider context, and expanding. Uncle G (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a particularly interesting word problem, although as Uncle G mentions, everything other than the "had"s is not universal. (The version I saw started "Tom, where Dick..." and ended "the examiner's approval". And it took me sixteen years to work it out. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepInteresting PirateSmackK (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Being interesting is not a reason to keep an article. Tavix | Talk  02:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey are you following me around? Let the closing administrator weigh the appropriateness of !votes - you don't have a valid reason to strike off my vote. Its my belief that if something is verifiable and interesting/bizarre then it should be included in an encyclopaedia, even if it lacks WP:RS to establish notability; WP:IAR should be applied in such cases. For me WP:V>WP:N. Ofcourse this is just my opinion, just as Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is someone's. I've unstricken my votePirateSmackK (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not following you around, you stumbled upon a discussion I am taking part in. While you might not believe in it, WP:ATA is an essay that has the viewpoint of the majority of wikipedians. The reason that "interesting" is not a strong vote is listed in the appropriate section and I strongly suggest you read it. WP:IAR does not apply here because ignoring that rule does not benefit the Wikipedia in this case. Tavix | Talk  00:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You essay itself says why interesting can be a valid argument. Besides the article has reliable sources now. PirateSmackK (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  --  J mundo 13:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Google turns up dozens of reliable sources to establish notability; I don't see how this is any less noteworthy than Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, which is also prominent in the world of linguistics. In response to Chris G a few posts above: we have plenty of redirects, so I don't think the title is a problem. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFF - The Buffalo example may in fact be non-notable, but it's not the subject here. Unless there has been consensus on specific notability guidelines for linguistic phrases, we need to go by the standard notability guidelines and I'm still not seeing it.DSZ (talk)
 * No, this has nothing to do with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I clearly said why I believed this particular topic is notable, and then compared it to another, similar subject. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - That it is interesting is not a reason to keep it, see WP:INTERESTING. 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.DSZ (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Individual pieces of data, which is what linguistic examples sentences and puzzles are, are generally neither notable nor encyclopedic enough for inclusion. Cnilep (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ...but see below. Cnilep (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

-
 * Delete Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to a subsection of Syntax called "repetition". Wikipedia needs this content, or at least a description of this phenomenon, but this article title does not strike me as encyclopaedic.  Redirect after merging if this is felt important.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Syntax per Marshall. Definitely has some germane information that could be used... I'm not sure about a redirect, as it's not that common a search term :/ Cheers.  I 'mperator 18:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In a change to my previous suggestion, I now think the merge target should be Garden path sentence for reasons that, I hope, will be quite apparent to editors who examine that article.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  19:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced, for the simple reason that this isn't a garden path sentence. There's no ambiguity that causes parsing distress, nor is there a reduced relative clause &mdash; a common feature of garden path sentences.  This sentence is an example of how punctuation aids parsing, performing the task that would in spoken language be performed by stress, intonation, and pausing. Uncle G (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be happier with a merge to a new section of Syntax or Punctuation? My position is similar to the one I've taken in the Biblical Definition of God AfD, i.e. that (1) this content belongs on Wikipedia, but (2) it doesn't belong in an article with this title.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  21:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm undecided. It's difficult to pick out the subject as sources address it.  Have a look at the Jean Aitchison source, and see what you think.  It's this:
 * There are others. See these, for examples:
 * This is far from being the same, by a long chalk, as the biblical definition of God. That is a subject, addressed directly as one in sources.  This is one example of a subject, used as an example in sources, and is best refactored into that subject, once we have teased out of the sources what that subject properly is.  Aitchison is a strong pointer that this subject is repetition, although there are others that treat this primarily as a punctuation issue.  As I said, read it yourself, and see what you think.  Perhaps we need a separate article on various aspects of repetition with a discussion in punctuation that links to it. Uncle G (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was the same. I said my position is similar.  :) I turned to my trusty Fowler's (ISBN 0-19-869126-2; I have the 1996 edition) and found a substantial treatment of the phenomenon under "repetition".  Arguably, this could go an article called Repetition (syntax).— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I have the 1958 re-print, untouched by Gowers or Burchfield, and its entry doesn't mention this sort of thing at all.  I'll have to see whether I can lay my hands upon one of the revised editions.  This is apparently one of the things that was revised.  &#9786;  I've quickly checked several others, including Follett, Horwill, Gowers' Plain Words, and Patridge's Usage and Abusage, and they don't have this under repetition.  Am I to take it that since coming across this source you are happier with repetition? &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Much. :)  As far as I'm concerned, if Fowler's calls it "repetition" then "repetition" is its name.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per S Marshall, given that (as Uncle G suggested above) the problem here is the title of the present article, as well as the different 'forms' the conundrum may appear in. The garden path strikes me as the right route to take. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope that we don't find ourselves going up the garden path. &#9786;  There's definitely an overarching subject here. But teasing it out of sources and identifying it is tricky.  This sentence exemplifies how punctuation aids parsing.  And there are several widely known ones like it.  "There should be hyphens between fish and and and and and chips." is another.  These aren't "garden-path" sentences, strictly speaking. Uncle G (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Uncle G, you are right, as so often. I'll have another look at the sources provided. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not seem to meet notability as it seems simply to be a teaching aid. Ironically, I was just reading WP:DAFT. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  22:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G3 and WP:MADEUP. The Junk Police (reports|works) 02:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither G3 nor WP:MADEUP applies here. This was the first sentence of the "repeating word" genre I ever encountered, when I was a little kid over 30 years ago. I'm undecided as to whether there should be an article on it, but the sentence is a well-known example of the type. Perhaps we should have a general article on Repeating word sentences (or some other name) to which this and the "Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" and the "fish and and and and and chips" should be merged. —Angr 05:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the sources cited above. What do you think?  Repetition, punctuation, or syntax? Uncle G (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't know how much I had wish it had. ;)  JBsupreme (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete G3 and WP:MADEUP. The Junk Police (reports|works) 02:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither G3 nor WP:MADEUP applies here. This was the first sentence of the "repeating word" genre I ever encountered, when I was a little kid over 30 years ago. I'm undecided as to whether there should be an article on it, but the sentence is a well-known example of the type. Perhaps we should have a general article on Repeating word sentences (or some other name) to which this and the "Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" and the "fish and and and and and chips" should be merged. —Angr 05:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the sources cited above. What do you think?  Repetition, punctuation, or syntax? Uncle G (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't know how much I had wish it had. ;)  JBsupreme (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to something like Repetition in linguistics - 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 "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. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I usually agree with Linguist, but in this case I feel that Repetition in linguistics wouldn't represent the article's content as clearly as Repetition (syntax). Do I need to explain why?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  15:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Repetition in linguistics, Repetition (syntax), Syntactic ambiguity, Ambiguity (syntax), Parsing (syntax), etc could all work as merge targets. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I simply took repetition in linguistics from Aitchison, as cited above. But now we have a second source, found by S Marshall.  I'm quite curious as to what it says, now. Uncle G (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to to with Repetition (syntax), with deference to Marshall--and because I think syntactical issues come "before" punctuation issues. (I just ordered a copy of Fowler, 2003 edition.) But I'll settle for whatever the linguistic minds here come up with--it seems to me that they have the bookshelves to back up their argument. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't summarise it usefully for you, Uncle G, because it's about three columns of text that's already expressed with Fowleresque concision, but I can describe it. It starts off by examining "had had", then "do do" ("the way in which we do do such things"), then "her her" ("she brings with her her daughter"), then "that that" ("not that that would bother most people nowadays"), then "was was", "it it", and then multiple "that"s (getting up to four).  Then it goes on for nearly an entire column on the case "is is", mentioning a phenomenon called "pleonastic doubling".  Then it spends another most of a column talking about doubled phrases rather than doubled words.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article is now not much more than the problem and the solution, so even if it is deleted, I don't think it would be much trouble to add it into this hypothetical new article (once ya'll have agreed what that article will be called). If the plan is to move the whole batch of articles on these things into one article covering the general concept and using a few specific examples, I have no objection to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am not retracting my delete suggestion, above, but I am not opposed to a merge into some sort of "repetition" page, as described by S Marshall, Uncle G, LinguistAtLarge et alia. Cnilep (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, it will be no trouble to recreate this until a more suitable title. Wuzzit (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, with the intention of merging. It does appear a little excessive to try and spin this out into a full article; but it's certainly a frequently-referenced grammatical curiosity and the content could easily be incorporated into another article on the subject - reliable sources also appear to have been found to support it. ~ mazca  t 11:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Guys, this is ridiculous. When I originally started this article almost two years ago I had to fight to keep it from Speedy Deletion.  Look at it's History page.  Look how active it is.  The only reason you all are arguing over it now is because it's become so frequently accessed and has been expanded so much.  This is a model for what Wikipedia is about.  I don't pretend to be an expert on the Wikipedia bylaws, but I know Wikipedia is about compiling knowledge and bringing people together in the sharing of that knowledge.  That is exactly what this does.  I saw this sentence on the page "List of example sentences" and my roommate and I couldn't figure it out.  We did some research, figured it out, and I added the page as a means for other people to understand this linguistic oddity, without the hassle my friend and I went through to figure it out.  People enjoy this article, and people are learning from it.  To delete this is to subjugate Wikipedia to the type of bureaucracy that kills free thought and fails to recognize quality because it is so restrained by the technicalities of its own operation.  Read the article and take from it what I intended: something worth understanding.  Please do not delete this.  If you really feel the need to create a new article, with a new title, by all means do so.  But allow this information to be accessed, and specifically linked to from the list of example sentences page and Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo.  That is what it was for.  Thanks. -Timt1006  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timt1006 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If similar sentences, including the malo and buffalo sentences, are considered notable, why not this one? I do think that it is notable enough - see the references. darkweasel94 (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is a valid encyclopedic topic and sources are available, merging and changing the title should be discuss in the talk page of the article not here. -- J mundo 02:32, 7 May 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.