User talk:EmilyR34

Hi EmilyR34! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 08:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to have to decline your first revdel request after installing the script. If you see WP:NONCREATIVE Bare facts are in the public domain. Works must show sufficient human creativity to be eligible for copyright at all. Nice to see a relatively new editor actually add the script and file a revdel request, as even many seasoned editors still fail to do so. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and for pointing me to NONCREATIVE. I am still a learner so i really appreciate the guidance. I only came across the script after seeing a revdel request on another page and then tried using it myself. Installing the script and making a revdel request was straightforward-thanks to the Wikipedia team. I then came back to this page and placed my first request but i now understand that bare facts are not copyrightable. Another reason i removed the score sheets section was because it looked like a direct copy-paste from another site without any changes and it was poorly formatted in a way that did not match our standards. I have not seen other pages using score sheet tables in this manner. I will keep your advice in mind for future edits and will try to be more careful. Thanks again for the guidance and for taking corrective action. EmilyR34 (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I think I would have done the same thing, and I'm not convinced on the value of a scoresheet, but I have zero interest in sports so I've left for WP:NPP to review. Frankly with copyright there is no 100% correct answer as it's very much up to interpretation, so we all have to learn by a bit of trial and error and experience. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your perspective. It is reassuring to know you would have handled it similarly. I agree that the value of a scoresheet is debatable, and I think it is best left for NPP to review as you mentioned. I also appreciate your point about copyright being more about interpretation than a fixed rule; that makes sense and helps me understand why experience plays such an important role. I will keep learning through these trial-and-error moments and hopefully improve with time. Thanks again for taking the time to guide me! EmilyR34 (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, the discussion does not fulfill any of the requirements for WP:RELIST so this relisting appears totally out of left field and unnecessary. In my opinion, a consensus was already reached. I would ask you to please reverse the relisting, move it back to the original point in the deletion log and let an actual admin weigh in instead. If the admin relists it anyway, I won't argue. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Zxcvbnm I understand where you are coming from, but in my opinion the discussion does not yet show a clear consensus for keeping . There are still at least four editors, including the nominator, opposing retention. The second relist was only meant to give the discussion a bit more time for any remaining input and to help ensure the consensus is well-grounded before closure. It is not about dragging things out or second-guessing existing comments. That said, I have reverted the relist to see how an admin would approach it. It will be a good learning experience for me either way. Thanks again for taking the time to share your concerns. EmilyR34 (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the redirect arguments cut the mustard here - if the character is so primary, why is he not even notable enough for his own article? In my opinion it would be incredibly difficult to argue that this DAB page be deleted unless Pepsiman got a full article AND succeeded in a move discussion to make it primary, in which case it would be overwritten in the process anyway.

So what I mean is that WP:NOTAVOTE should come into play here. To overcome the status quo that has the advantage here, it would need some really stellar arguments that the character is primary, not just a stated belief that it is, and it doesn't seem like such arguments are forthcoming. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi I'm Barkeep49. I recently saw that you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Loomis a third time with the comment {{tqq|Final reslist]]. According to WP:RELIST third relists should generally not happen and in the unusual situations where they are appropriate should contain a short explanation either within the {{relist}} template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result, which your relist comment does not do. In looking at some of your other recent work at AfD, I see a series of third relists on beauty pageants either with identical comments or no comment at all. These all stand in contrast to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cameron Olafson where you did a third relist and give some reason as to why a third relist was appropriate Limited participation and no clear consensus on SNG. Final relisting to allow more editors to review and weigh in. (emphasis added). Please do more like this last one or ideally with even further explanation. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Barkeep49, thanks for the note. That's a fair point about WP:RELIST. A brief rationale should have accompanied a third relist. In this case there had been no participation from anyone other than the nominator and the page creator, and even after the second relist the discussion still had not attracted any additional editors. Because of that, I treated it as a straightforward relist and did not think an explanatory comment was necessary. However, adding a short explanation would have been appropriate. I will keep that in mind for future relists. I appreciate you pointing it out, and thanks for offering help if I have any questions. Best regards. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @EmilyR34! I've seen you around AfD recently, you have done some good closes! I just wanted to make a note about AfDs such as this one. If nobody responds to the nominator after 7 days, it can be treated in the same way as an uncontested WP:PROD (see this as an example), meaning it closes as soft delete. You relisted that AfD, which is also fine however. Keep up the good work! 11WB (talk) 11:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@11WB Thank you for the kind note and for taking the time to share your thoughts – I appreciate it. I understand the point you're making, and i agree that uncontested AfDs can often be treated similarly to PROD where appropriate. That said, i saw this case a little differently. The nomination did not address whether the subject fails WP:NSPORTS, which i felt was an important point that still needed to be considered. For sportsperson biographies, that distinction matters. Athletes are rarely the subject of feature-style coverage and are more commonly covered through competition participation, team rosters, results, or database-type sources. If notability were assessed strictly through a general-coverage lens alone, many sports biographies would likely fail by default, which wouldn't really reflect how NSPORTS is meant to be applied. In this case, the subject has participated in multiple national-level competitions, and my intent with the relist was simply to allow some space for additional input on whether that participation meets the relevant sports notability criteria. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion usually evolves based on what the nominator believes is relevant. In this case NSPORTS wasn't cited, even though you are right to mention it. It is the job of those who relist and close to make informed decisions based on what is discussed and eventually forms as consensus, rather than what we believe should be discussed. When we have our own thoughts, that's when it is better to participate directly by leaving a comment or !voting! 11WB (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)