- Dickinson State–Valley City State football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source. Also, per @Cbl62:, we should have a reasonably high bar for rivalries between a pair of small NAIA programs Joeykai (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete – Fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. Ping me if sources are found that show significant notability Publicwalrus (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: Fails WP:GNG and has WP:AISIGNS. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 21:45, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. The many citations are school athletics pages, databases and conference reports, not independent analysis of the rivalry itself. I found no significant secondary coverage, so WP:GNG is not met. Onatic (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete due to the lack of coverage from third party Independent sources calling it a rivalry. Ping me if any sources are found that show notability. Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:54, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
- Pavel Hlava film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
To preface this: Not strongly leaning delete, but also suggest WP:DRAFTIFY (though that may not be enough). To put it lightly, article tries to treat this film like the Zapruder film. Concerns about LLM use in its content, lacking references (among those it has, the article even cites our own Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks, which is discouraged), and potentially a lot of original research and synthesis, particularly in the Film analysis section. Created by new user in August, probably should have gone through WP:AFC to incubate. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:30, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
- Keep but agree an almost total rewrite seems to be needed. // IndrasBet 「talk」 20:22, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
- Keep: The writing looks nothing like LLMs. The only noted signs of LLM usage were citations to Wikipedia and Grokipedia, which are very weak indicators for LLM-generated text. Any concerns with original research and poorly sourced content can be dealt with by removing portions of the text. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
- I have removed most of the original research and other problematic content from the article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Gurkubondinn: did you have additional reasons to mark this article as AI-generated that I'm not seeing? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- Looks like I put most of it in the tag, created with references to Grokipedia and circular references to Wikipedia. There were also more circular references to Wikipedia added in Diff/1371877542.
- I do remember about this article now that I take a look at it, but I don't remember what lead to me finding it. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:00, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete as failing NOLLM, per my other reply here and the
{{ai-generated}} that I placed on the article. ‑‑gurkubondinn 18:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- It is very plausible that a new editor who doesn't know about WP:RS would manually insert references to Wikipedia and Grokipedia. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- Herb W. Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG The coverages are mostly routine including, press releases, sponsored contents. There is no significant in-depth coverage required meeting notability standards. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and United States of America. Thilsebatti (talk) 03:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: unrelated to the nominator's notability concerns, this is tagged (by someone else) as including LLM text. (No opinion on either matter.). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Suspected AI-generated articles and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the list of California-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- Redirect to 2026 California State Controller election per WP:BLP1E also Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES. Although subject has received significant coverage as a candidate, it falls under BLP1E. If subject of this AfD is elected, redirect can be made into an article again, as subject will meet notability requirements for politician.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 17:58, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
- List of syncretic or right-wing parties using socialist terminology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Made by Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/ProgramT. Beyond the AI issues, totally unsourced and non-notable cross categorization that fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Which, yes, Nazi means "National Socialist", we do not need to have a list that is "every neo-Nazi group and a bunch of other right-wing groups that happen to use the word "socialist"." And "syncretic"? What? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: If the article is obviously AI generated, doesn't it qualify for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion? AFeatherlessBipehead (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- Yes it would be, under WP:G15. ~2026-54957-04 (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- It's a list, there's not really any AI prose to G15 this with. And "obviously AI generated" it is not, that requires tells. The LLMPROD process is a bit different. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- You're probably right on this one but the comment asked "if the article is obviously AI generated..." and I gave an answer based on that assumption. ~2026-54957-04 (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
- Fair. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete Per proposer's rationale. This includes the AINB case but also, independent of that, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Topic fails WP:NLIST and is pure WP:OR. मल्ल (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete This is not a coherent or relevant topic. AadamentAardvark (talk) 04:02, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. This is not a notable topic, and is in any case WP:SYNTH.
- Reasoncraft (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete - Some stuff just doesn't need a page, this is an example. Militant.Insurgency (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- Nick Matzorkis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
LLM-generated, promotional, refspammed. Refs are mainly the type where Matzorkis is mentioned but is not the main topic at hand. There are also non-independent refs such as links to his personal archive as well as a "contributor" (ie paid/sketchy) article from Entrepreneur.com.
Even if Matzorkis is notable (which I'm not convinced of), this LLM-generated version is not an appropriate version of the article and should be TNT'd. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Internet. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Suspected AI-generated articles and California. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete. This article fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Aneirinn (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2026 (UTC) Redirect to Heaven's Gate (religious group). Aneirinn (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
- Hello Aneirinn. I beg to differ with your assessment.
- Please explain exactly how the subject fails this standard for WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
- Thank you Veganomics (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment: This article previously existed and was deleted in 2009. The account also seems to be Single Purpose, only edits outside of this topic are to get enough edits to create an article around the AfC process. Moritoriko (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Moritoriko. I don't know anything about a previous article -- that's before my time. While you may think this article appears single purpose, it's not. I'm just getting started with Wikipedia. I'm doing research on obscure entrepreneurs and this is the first one I've collected enough information on to be able to create an article around. I'm hoping that future articles I write here will be welcomed.
- Thank you Veganomics (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- This was just a comment to let people reading know about the past history of the article.
- Not the article, I meant your account, you did a bunch of small edits on a variety of pages and then you made this page and (almost) all of your other edits have been adding Matzorkis to other pages as opposed to working on a wide variety of topics. This is partly because you are a new account, as you do more work it won't be an issue (hopefully :))
- I am glad to hear that and I hope you can make some good articles. Moritoriko (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Moritoriko. I've been doing a lot of research on some other entrepreneurs who I think will rise to the standard of notable, but who don't have Wiki articles. These include Ellen Latham, co-founder of Orangetheory Fitness; Justin McLeod, founder of Hinge; and Howie Liu, co-founder and CEO of Airtable. I'm learning a lot from this discussion that will be helpful to me in the future -- thank you. Veganomics (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete. (1) This article is not LLM generated. (2) This article is not promotional. (3) I don't know what "refspammed" means so I'll have to check on that.
- Regarding (1): Did you run the current article through an AI detector to determine that the article is LLM gnerated? If so, please upload a copy or copy and paste the results.
- Regarding (2): This guy has had a pretty remarkable entrepreneurial journey and just the very nature of the kinds of businesses he's been involved in and started might seem to be promotional, but the entertainment business reads that way. Please point out specific sections that are promotional and they can be fixed.
- Regarding (3): Many of the references are published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Again, if some don't meet those criteria, then please point them out -- they can be replaced.
- Finally, regarding notability, Matzorkis meets the standard here: Wikipedia:Notability (people) "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple publishedsecondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." How many is "multiple?" 3? 5? 10? 25? What is Wikipedia's baseline requirement? In this case, there are multiple articles from The Washington Post, the NY Times, the Los Angeles Times, Elle, NPR, the San Francisco Chronicle, Inc., Costco Connection, and more where Matzorkis appears and in many cases is quoted.
- Thanks for your consideration. Veganomics (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- Hi, I am the person who tagged the article as incorporating text from an LLM. I thought it seemed overly wordy and promotional in line with other previously confirmed cases and then afterwards I selected a couple paragraphs I hadn't edited and put them in an AI-detector to see if it agreed with me. Truthfully I don't think that they are fully reliable but it did provide another data point for me to consider.
- As for how many sources is multiple, the usual baseline at AfD is ~3 depending on the strength of the sources. I will go through the sources on the article here and give you some comments about them to help.
- Crunchbase: Useless source, does not help when considering notability and probably not useful otherwise either
- James' obituary: this source is not considered independent because it was most likely written by the family, could be used for basic uncontroversial facts possibly
- Entreprenuer.com: the tone and the fact that the author is a marketer rather than reporter make me not feel great about this source
- Billboard: A brief brief mention that is not significant
- Cleveland Historical: No mention, good source for Henry LaConti
- Youtube: not suitable as a source for anything
- Copley News Service: through some search-fu I have found the article written by a journalist but it doesnt match at all with the sentences it is used to support (a problem often seen with LLM generated content). It does talk about Matzorkis though so it might be useful for a re-written article.
- SFGate: no mention of Matzorkis
- Overall having many of these not great sources leads to editors viewing the article poorly. The best sources I found are ones like or Moritoriko (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for providing me with detailed feedback. Through this discussion I'm learning what references are considered high quality and which ones are not. Didn't realize that Crunchbase and Entrepreneur in particular are considered useless. I'll take a closer look at these and see if I can find better references and/or rewrite the passages. Thank you Veganomics (talk) 16:45, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- Redirect to Heaven's Gate (religious group). I found significant coverage of the subject of this AfD via ProQuest here, and here, but they are all related to Heaven's Gate. Thus WP:BIO1E applies. While there are passing mentions about later business ventures, none of them are significant coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 17:14, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete I couldn't bring myself to check EVERY citation but I did not find even one that could be considered a reliable source. What I did find were single sentences in sources tacked on to multiple-paragraph sections that could not be attributed to him in the source, as well as sections with single citations that don't even mention him. In other words, very little of what is in this article can be verified through acceptable sources, and I find suspect that the article makes claims that are no where to be found in sources. Lamona (talk) 03:35, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment. I just trimmed down the article considerably, removing unsourced material and providing higher-quality sources throughout. Again, the article is not LLM-generated. I believe that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability standard. He has founded numerous businesses -- many that were pioneering when they were founded, such as Web Sites Now!, U.S. SEARCH, and ZabaSearch. He owns SUP ATX paddleboards, Tequila 512, and other companies. Plus he was a key figure in the Heaven's Gate mass suicide. Thank you for your consideration. Veganomics (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
- Keep or Draftify - But I agree that the article needs substantial cleanup. I spent some time clicking through the references individually to better understand the concerns raised here. There are quite a few, so I won't go through every one of them, but I do think there is a distinction between the quality of the current article and whether Matzorkis meets WP:GNG. I also recently went through an LLM accusation when I have never used it in my life.
- I agree that several references are weak, duplicated, promotional, or primarily about companies rather than Matzorkis himself. However, I also found some independent reporting that I think deserves consideration:
- Entrepreneur (1997), "All A Board: reading this, it contains a section specifically discussing Matzorkis, his background, and the establishment of 1-800-U.S. Search. It is pretty short but goes beyond a passing mention.
- The Washington Post (1997), "TV Finally Comes Knocking at Heaven's Gte": this provides reporting about Matzorkis's involvement in the television-film negotiations, his business activities, and his dealings with the media. I went around the paywall and checked out some other pages with this article embedded.
- The Washington Post (1997), "Cult Members Died in Shifts Over Days": this discusses his involvement in the Heaven's Gate events and his relationship with a former member of the group. Although the tragedy is the main subject, he receives some coverage.
- Los Angeles Times (1997), "Hollywood Pitches Suicide Cult as 'Flavor of the Day'" and "Businessman Who Helped Find Heaven's Gate Victims Is Jailed": i thinn these consitute additional independent reporting about Matzorkis, with the latter focusing more on him.
- NPR (2005), "ZabaSearch.com and Personal Privacy on the Web": Covers his role as ZabaSearch's chairman and includes perspectives beyond his own. It is primarily about the company though...
- Inc. (2025), "7 Startup Secrets From a Successful Serial Entrepreneur and Founder": Focuses primarily on Matzorkis and his entrepreneurial career. I would give this less weight than independently researched newspaper reporting because it relies heavily on his own statements.
- I don't think every citation should count toward notability, and I agree that the article should be rewritten to remove unsupported or promotional claims. Nevertheless, I would be hesitant to delete an article when there is documented independent reporting about the subject across several decades.
- So I lean towards Keep or Draftify, with significant rewriting and better source selection. The concerns about potentially AI-generated writing are worth addressing separately, but they do not by themselves determine whether the subject is notable. CuriousOrbit84 (talk) 01:55, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
Comment: see this AI checker. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for linking this, very useful.
- And the results for everyone else wondering:
- human: 0.0
- ai: 0.085
- mixed: 0.915
- Moritoriko (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- Draftily/Edit: I do agree that the page needs serious work however I think it passes WP:GNG, deleting the page would not be justified so best to either draft it or change the page so its non-AI. FestusBashara (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2026 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding clause (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
On September 19, 2026, I PROD'd this article for the following reasons: "Pretty much any source anyone is gonna find on this topic will be of Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is already its own article. Otherwise, there's no evidence of notability." I will admit, I was also motivated by the inclusion of the AI-generated tag.
JASpencer objected to this, saying that notwithstanding clauses are a common legal provision beyond Section 33, before going on to expand the article. However, one month later, and I am still not convinced. In his bid to prove the subject's notability, he could only find one reliable, secondary source that discussed the concept of notwithstanding clauses in-depth. Given that the search for evidence of this subject's notability has turned up short, this article should be deleted. Lazman321 (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
- The Congressional Research Service, BBC, Brick Court Chambers and the House of Commons Library aren't reliable secondary sources? JASpencer (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
- The CRS only talks about one notwithstanding clause in-depth within the context a specific law and doesn't really discuss the concept of notwithstanding clauses in-depth, which isn't a strong indicator of notability. BBC does not talk about any notwithstanding clause, both in general or in context, in-depth. Brick Court Chambers is a self-published blog, and the House of Commons Library is a repository of primary sources. Lazman321 (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Suspected AI-generated articles. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:27, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment - I'll be doing a keep comment when I have time, but a suggested compromise doesn't seem to have been tried - which is to rename the general worldwide legal principle which we are discussing to something like Non Obstante Clause and pointing Notwithstanding Clause to the article that is narrowly limited to Canada, as the more common search tetm. This should satisfy the Canadian nationalists while keeping the general legal and constitutional concept safely in what is supposed to be an Encyclopedia.
- Keep This is an important concept in legal drafting that is not just present in Canada but also the United Kingdom, Australia, India and the United States - and that's limited to what is in the article.
- I quite understand the argument that the phrase "Notwithstanding Clause" is shorthand for an important and often reported element in Canada's constitutional arrangements, but a competing use of a term has never been an argument for excluding another legitimate, let alone more general and abstract, use of the term. I do accept that this opens up a question of the ownership of the address for "Notwithstanding Clause", but suppression of a legitimate and more general article on which the particular Canadian example is based is not an appropriate use of the AfD process.
- On a small technical note I think that the nominator has become confused about reliable secondary sources when "only" citing a legal textbook probably by looking at Sources rather than References; as they have missed a national broadcaster, a barristers' chambers and the official research services for the British Parliament and the US Congress.
- Wikipedia is big enough for two articles, which is just as well as if one of the articles should be merged into the other it would be the Canadian example rather than the Common Law principle on which the example is based. The problem is that we don't have one URL, but that's a question of naming rather than deletion.
- JASpencer (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete - the examples (other than the Canadian one) seem to be about the use of the word "notwithstanding" in legal documents, not "Notwithstanding clause" as it's own thing. It could be kept as "Notwithstanding (legal term)" or something. But clearly the main current use of "notwithstanding clause" is the Canadian example. SECProto (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
- Keep - its use in contracts and last wills and testaments are ubiquitous. Do you really want our readers to abandon us for Grokpedia? I'll die on this hill, which is that AfD is not for tinkering with articles, notwithstanding that it's just one little article. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
- So an article tagged as containing AI-generated content with little to no evidence of meeting WP:GNG must be kept because...we want to keep people away from Grokpedia? We shouldn't be basing our decisions on whether it will lead to readers to switch to Grokpedia; we should be basing them on whether it will improve Wikipedia. Do you have multiple secondary sources that analyze the concept of notwithstanding clauses in-depth? Lazman321 (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
- That's not the notability criteria. The criteria is whether there is evidence that it's being used. And there's plenty of evidence of that. JASpencer (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- That has never been the notability criteria. WP:GNG says, "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." And it does clarify that by sources, it means multiple secondary sources, as in sources that analyze primary sources such as laws. Lazman321 (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2026 (UTC)
- Minhaj (app) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and also blatantly AI-generated in violation of WP:LLM (see e.g. this diff that removed The publicly available sources consulted for this article do not provide independently verified figures for the number of teachers involved in these services or the number of ijazahs issued through the application , an example of WP:AIDISCLAIMER). No independent coverage besides routine reporting of a ceremony where the application was announced, which just repeats what the announcers have to say about the app. This should not be merged to Muslim World League because it is LLM-generated. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Internet, and Saudi Arabia. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:49, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
- Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Software-related AfD discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:05, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete: There is no WP:GNG and this has WP:AISIGNS. In solidarity, Dafootballguy (Want to talk?) 22:35, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
- Keep : I'm actively improving the article. Please identify any sections that need rewriting, and I'll address them. -Dina96 (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
- Rewrite completed. I made a tremendous effort to improve the article, rewriting almost every line. If any issues remain, please identify the sections that need further revision, and I’ll fix them. --Dina96 (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
- This does not address WP:Notability at all. One of the new references is a press release and the other is a new article just published today on f7wa.com, an obscure, anonymously run online encyclopedia that does not appear to be a reliable source. And merely rewording + trimming LLM-generated text does not resolve the problem of LLM usage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
- I have added further sources, including An-Nahar newspaper analysis, Okaz newspaper articles, and coverage of Minhaj's May 2026 partnership. I removed the f7wa reference. Minhaj is designed to serve Muslim communities worldwide, and its practical value may be less apparent to those who have not used it. However, I recognize that usefulness alone does not establish notability, and ask that the additional independent coverage be assessed under WP:GNG.--Dina96 (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
- The An-Nahar and Okaz articles are opinion pieces that also appear to regurgitate what the announcers said at the ceremony; this is not independent, reliable coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:26, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
- Delete. This article is LLM-generated and it is best to delete it from this wonderful website. Aneirinn (talk) 23:26, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
- Again, The article has been completely rewritten by hand. Please review the article history and compare the revisions before and after this discussion. The current version is a substantially revised article, NOT the original version. I believe it should be assessed based on its current content rather than its previous state 3 weeks ago.--Dina96 (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2026 (UTC)
|