User Talk: EmilyR34

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome!

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:

{{Clickable button|Help:Introduction|Learn more about editing|class=mw-ui-progressive|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

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:

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Teahouse|Get help at the Teahouse|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

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

{{Clickable button|Wikipedia:Task Center|Volunteer at the Task Center|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Happy editing!  '''Jay8g''' <small>[<nowiki />V•T•E ↗<nowiki />]</small> 08:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Polish Basketball All-Star Game

Hi, sorry to have to decline your first revdel request after installing the script. If you see WP:NONCREATIVE ↗ {{tq|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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pepsiman ↗

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)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. All '''eligible users ↗''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee ↗ is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process ↗. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans ↗, topic bans ↗, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy ↗ describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy Loomis ↗

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 {{tqq|<nowiki>a short explanation either within the {{</nowiki>relist ↗<nowiki>}} template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result</nowiki>}}, 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 {{tqq|'''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)

Soft delete ↗

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! <span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span> (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! <span style="color:#8C6A31; ">11WB</span> (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lakes of Sharp County, Arkansas ↗

Hello EmilyR34!

Thank you for volunteering. We have 2 keeps, 1 "merge at the ''very least''" (which indicates retaining the info) and 1 "merge ''and then'' redirect" (which would means that the list should be merged and then the article would be redirected). And then we have 4 delete/merge !votes (including the blocked nominator) that say that only the notable lakes should be retained. That's a 50/50 split for retaining the info somewhere on the site versus not retaining it at all. That seems to be no consensus, in my opinion. Thoughts? <span style="color: blue">'''''~WikiOriginal-9~'''''</span> (<span style="color: blue">'''talk'''</span>) 20:03, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

:@WikiOriginal-9 Thanks for the message. I looked at the strength of the policy arguments instead of just counting heads. As you said, there was a {{tq|split between retaining the info somewhere on the site versus not retaining it at all}}, so there was a clear consensus that this county-level list should not exist as an independent article per WP:NLIST ↗. Closing as 'no consensus' would have resulted in a 'Keep' by default, which would have ignored that clear consensus. The 'Keep' !votes relied on 'it exists elsewhere' (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ↗) and 'it’s useful to locals' (WP:USEFUL ↗) kind of arguments, which Reywas92 effectively countered. Simply importing non-notable names from the GNIS database without encyclopedic improvement creates a directory rather than a notable list. On the split between 'delete' and 'merge,' I chose Redirect as a middle ground for both sides. It keeps the page history for the 'retain info' group, but it also solves the 'no standalone article' problem for the other half.
:I also took into account Clarityfiend's suggestion to {{tq|merge notable lakes... and redirect}}. As Reywas92 pointed out, {{tq|Many of these pages have zero blue links, and those that are link to other lakes in different states with the same name. Many of these are actually small ponds}}. Looking at the list, it is almost all redlinks except for Lake Cherokee ↗ (which already goes to a different state). There wasn't much content to actually merge into the main list yet. A redirect to List of lakes of Arkansas ↗ was the most practical way to handle it for now.
:I hope that answers your question! EmilyR34 (talk) 03:37, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 North Vancouver—Capilano federal by-election ↗

Hi. Can you please ensure you implement the close after closing an AfD discussion? If you are unable to implement the close, then next time please allow someone who is able to implement the close to close the discussion. This is covered in WP:NACD ↗, {{tq|q=y|Non-admin closers should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages.}} ―<span style="background:#ececec;color:#005475;font-size:0.9em;">'''''"Ghost of Dan Gurney"'''''</span> <sub><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS';font-size=3em">(hihi)</span> ↗</sub> 13:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

:@GhostOfDanGurney Ah, my bad. Totally missed that-thanks for pointing it out. Fixed now. EmilyR34 (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks! ―<span style="background:#ececec;color:#005475;font-size:0.9em;">'''''"Ghost of Dan Gurney"'''''</span> <sub><span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS';font-size=3em">(hihi)</span> ↗</sub> 15:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Request Review of AFD Closure of Bunda Street

Hello EmilyR34. On 18 May, you closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunda Street ↗ and carried out a page merge. I would like to request you review this non admin close and consider reverting the merge. I think the AfD was opened without considering if the article could instead be updated and improved. The nominator's rationale did not cite any ''policy'' based arguments, nor did any of those who commented while it was open.
I do appreciate that the page that was merged did not contain much information and was light on sources, but notably, Bunda Street is effectively Canberra's main street. Unlike some other recent AfDs for streets in Canberra, sufficient sources do exist that would see this one meet WP:GNG ↗ as per WP:GEOROAD ↗. Eg. A quick google search turned up at least 5 Reliable Sources from the last 7 years that provide significant coverage of redevelopment of this street - see https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6067250/confusion-still-reigns-on-bunda-street-shareway-as-government-spruiks-new-road-rules/ ↗, https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6068479/bunda-street-shared-zone-vies-for-national-planning-award/ ↗, https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6078387/bunda-street-to-be-shared-by-motorists-pedestrians-and-cyclists/ ↗, https://www.woroni.com.au/words/walking-on-a-dream-the-disappointment-of-the-bunda-street-shared-zone/ ↗, https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9063443/navigating-bunda-street-canberras-confusing-shared-zone/ ↗.

Had i come across this discussion while it was open, i would have argued to keep the article and expanded it considerably with the sources mentioned to support this. Unfortunately, i was not aware of the discussion which only ran for 7 days. I request you review your close, undo the merge and reopen the discussion to allow me to make this case. Thank you. Dfadden (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

:Hello @Dfadden. Thank you for writing and for pulling those sources together. The sources do suggest ''Bunda Street'' may have a case for meeting WP:GNG ↗, and that is genuinely worth looking into. All five links appear to be paywalled, though, so the actual depth of coverage in each piece would need to be confirmed before notability can be assessed with any confidence.
:A merge closure is not permanent. If your sourcing holds up and you have enough material for a well-referenced article, you are free to recreate it. I'd just suggest giving it some time before going ahead.
:I do understand that missing the discussion is frustrating. The discussion ran the full seven days and closed on schedule. Reopening it for editors who were not aware of it is not something that can be done fairly to the others who participated in good faith within that window.
:One thing to clarify: I closed the discussion, but the merge itself was done by a different editor. Reversing that on the basis of a message to me alone would not be the right process. EmilyR34 (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for the reply @EmilyR34. A couple of things: Firstly, while you are quite correct that 7 days had passed at the time of your close, i'd like to point out that per WP:XFD#CON ↗: {{tq|remember that ''nobody is obligated to close a discussion'', nor is it crucial that a discussion be closed immediately once its week-long run has ended}}.
::I'd also like to point out that WP:RELIST ↗ states:
{{tq2|
::If, at the end of the initial seven-day period:
::* the discussion has only a few participants ↗ (including the nominator); or
::* the discussion seems to be lacking arguments based on policy ↗; or
::* the participants in the discussion might be nearing a § Consensus ↗
::It may be appropriate to '''relist''' the discussion instead of closing, in order to allow for the possibility that further discussion might lead to a discernible consensus.}}
::This suggests that a relist, rather than a merge, would have been an appropriate action given the limited participation and complete absence of ''policy based'' arguments by those who did contribute. Therefore, reconsidering this close to allow for further discussion is an appropriate course of action.
::I am not aware of any policy that requires a non-admin closer to consider "fairness" to other editors who contributed to a discussion that was closed where a relist was a more appropriate option. Their arguments will still be considered towards the eventual consensus with equal weight if the discussion is reopened, so there is no disadvantage to them. As you yourself have agreed, there does appear to be a case that the subject of this article meets GNG, so if our goal here is to improve the encyclopedia in good faith, then allowing that discussion to occur is the only course of action that makes sense.
::Finally, if i am not mistaken, MrActiniuM is the editor who carried out the merge after your close. If that is the case, I have procedural concerns as this is the same editor who initiated the AfD and contributed 50% of the discussion. I am happy to seek guidance from an admin on this point as I dont know if any specific policy has been violated, but it does not sit well with me. Based on this, i would rather not wait and create a new article later, and potentially have to go through another AfD, when the matter can be resolved with consensus now. It is my belief the close was premature based on the circumstances. I messaged you to request you review this close per the guidance at WP:MERGEREVIEW ↗ and provided substantial new information to attempt to resolve the issue, as you were the closer.
::I hope I have addressed your concerns sufficiently that you are now willing to revisit this close, bit i am happy to discuss this further. Thanks Dfadden (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Hi Dfadden. Thanks for writing. The discussion ran its full seven days and closed reflecting the consensus at that point. I do not see a procedural basis to relist or reopen the discussion under WP:RELIST ↗, which is discretionary and typically used where consensus is unclear or still developing.
:::AfD closures are assessed on what is in the discussion while it is open. The sources you found are useful for the article, but they do not normally provide procedural grounds to reopen a closed AfD.
:::I do understand why the nominator carrying out the merge does not sit well with you, and it is not the ideal way to handle it. No specific policy prohibits it though, and any editor can carry out the mechanical work once a closure is made. Since a merge preserves the full page history, nothing is lost. If you believe the subject meets WP:GNG ↗, build a draft in a sandbox and propose a split on the talk page of Civic, Australian Capital Territory ↗ so the community can evaluate a fully developed version of the content. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Thanks {{u|EmilyR34}}. I think there are actually two separate issues here, but they need be addressed in order.
::::I honestly believe that while intended entirely in good faith, this was a procedurally bad close. I cannot accept your claim that the discussion reflected genuine consensus at the time of closure. The reason why is that per WP:DETCON ↗, consensus {{tq|is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.}} Looking at the discussion and your closing statement, there is not a single reference to any policy to be seen. I appreciate that WP:RELIST ↗ is discretionary, but as the closer, the burden is still on you to justify why you chose not to relist, or consider another option like WP:SOFTMERGE ↗. This is especially true given that the nomination itself was just WP:ASSERTN ↗, which is generally considered an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion ↗ thus quite weak. I am willing to let it go if you can clearly articulate a valid basis that overrides WP:DETCON ↗, WP:XFD#CON ↗ and WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS ↗ that all require consensus to be determined based on the strength of evidence-based arguments to support your claim that a meaningful consensus was reached. Otherwise, i think there may be grounds for a close review as 1) significant additional information or context was left out of the discussion and the closer was not aware of it; and more importantly 2) the claim of consensus does not appear to be grounded in policy.
::::The second issue is recreation of the article. One of the things that gives me the most satisfaction on Wikipedia is finding and rescuing problematic articles about notable subjects i am familiar with. I could do that if the article existed in the mainspace, even if there was an open AfD. On principle, I do not think it is fair to have to create a new article from scratch in the draft space and submit this work for peer review in order to override a "consensus" determined via a bad close (a WP:SOFTMERGE ↗ close would have prevented this bureaucratic hurdle as anyone could undo the merge without having to relitigate "consensus"). It is especially frustrating as notabilty was never disputed in the first place. The nominator only provided an opinion that they did not believe the subject was ''significant''. On wikipedia, significance is subjective, while notability is an objective standard.
::::I would be willing to recreate the article and I am extremely confident it will end up back in the mainspace as I have rescued many before. But I do not want to go through this process if it can instead be resolved by reverting the move and reopening the discussion, either by yourself or a third party. This would also allow for collaboration from wikiprojects like the Article Rescue Squadron ↗, which developing in a sandbox would limit.
::::Unfortunately the venue for a close review is AN. AN is a generally long and unpleasant process for all involved. As an alternative, would you be willing to consider if we ask another uninvolved, experienced editor to weigh in and look at the close via WP:3O ↗? If you agree, I commit to you that should they deem the close was reasonable, I will accept that as the end of the matter. Dfadden (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::I think we may be looking at the discussion differently. I agree that consensus is based on the strength of arguments rather than simply counting participants. Looking at the discussion as it stood when it closed, i did not see anyone arguing for a different outcome. Everyone who participated supported a merge, and nobody argued that the article should remain standalone or presented sources during the discussion that would support standalone notability.
:::::The sources you've found may well support a standalone article and they're worth looking at. They weren't part of the discussion while the AfD was open, though. That's a content issue, not a procedural one. On the point about having to start from scratch, the article wasn't deleted. The content and full history are still there and can be copied into a sandbox and expanded.
:::::I'm happy to amend the closing note to make clear that the merge doesn't prevent the topic from being split back out in future if sufficient sourcing is developed. EmilyR34 (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::I agree we are looking at the discussion differently. Please correct me if i am wrong, but it appears you take the view that because nobody objected to the merge, on face value it appears that there was consensus the subject is not notable? While that is an understandable assumption, it is a decision based on incomplete information that doesnt align with wikipedia policy...
::::::My position is that because anybody can WP:BOLDly ↗ merge a page at any time, taking the merge proposal to AfD instead implies that the merge may be controversial, per WP:MERGEPROP ↗. It also creates a binding consensus. Because this option was taken, it shows the nominator believed the merge may be controversial, thus they should provide a rational for the merge. It is this rationale that forms the basis of the discussion. In this case (although poorly articulated) it appears that the intended rationale was WP:M1 ↗ (insufficient notability). If that is the case, then the discussion needs to address the issue of notability. None of the comments did. This discussion did not address notability policy at all, instead it assumed the article would be merged and focussed on the best target.
::::::By closing this as a hard merge, your close effectively determined the article was not notable. However, this was not supported any policy basis in the discussion or your closing statement. That is why I say the close was premature and bad - it had the effect of declaring there was consensus that this subject was not notable enough to have its own article, when there is evidence to support notability through SIGCOV and RS both in the article (see refs 1, 2 and 3) and existing online as i have indicated that are contrary to this outcome.
::::::Ideally, i would like to reopen the AfD as i believe the updated sources would allow for a discussion based on notability, and an informed decision to be made on the outcome (see WP:HEY ↗) to satisfy the nominator's concerns. However, if you are still unwilling to consider this. I appreciate the offer to amend your comments.
::::::
::::::Would you be willing to consider specifically stating this was a WP:SOFTMERGE ↗? Although that would not reopen the AfD so the missing information could be considered in an active discussion, it would allow me to split the article myself and add the new sources in the mainspace, without the requirement to first challenge the original AfD before moving to the mainspace? This would not preclude a new AfD if any editor still had doubts over the subject's notability. Dfadden (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::A merge outcome doesn't necessarily mean a topic is non-notable. It can also mean the standalone article was underdeveloped at the time, the content is better covered elsewhere, or the discussion didn't fully examine standalone notability. I've amended the closing note to reflect a soft merge. Under a soft merge, any editor can split the content back into the mainspace without first challenging the close. You can go ahead and develop the article with the sources you've found. Good luck with it. EmilyR34 (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Thank you for that amendment, I believe the closing comment is now an accurate summary of the AfD discussion, which was my primary concern. I appreciate you taking the time to work through this with me and now I will leave you alone to continue your good work and get on with restoring and improving the article. Happy editing! Dfadden (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2026 (UTC)