Talk:Jython

RFV discussion: June–October 2012
This article needs citations. —This.
 * Even if we did somehow get three citations, it should probably get deleted by the RFD process. -- Liliana • 05:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If this isn't a brand name, it's at least akin to a specific entity that should really prove some legitimacy in its cites. DAVilla 01:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

RFD discussion: March 2024
Specific software product, not a generic programming language. Was deleted before, has been re-added today. Equinox ◑ 01:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. It failed RFV in 2011, but I've added some cites showing it should pass WT:BRAND as a genericized trademark. I made a new RFV here. 195.146.4.192 01:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Heyandwhoa (talk) 02:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't be 100% sure, because they're using proxies, but this IP looks very much like someone we've been playing Whack-a-Mole with for years: they're absolutely obsessed with blends, and are always trying to sneak in lame and poorly attested examples. You can be sure that they wouldn't know or care about this if it weren't a blend of Java and Python. I've now blocked their whole range- they've been working on cites for skinoe and skanoe with other IP addresses within the range. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are right on the money. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 07:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Let's not count keeps and deletes here, but remember our rules. Equinox ◑ 03:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

RFV-deleted, the quotes don't demonstrate genericization at all. PUC – 13:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

RFV discussion: March 2024
It failed RFV in 2011, but I've added some cites showing it passes WT:BRAND as a genericized trademark. 195.146.4.192 01:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Those cites are not generic at all. Equinox ◑ 23:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)