I’ve not considered this question before - I had to look the terms up - but I’m with Steve. From the time it reaches sexual maturity, a C. elegans hermaphrodite (or female) continuously produces functioning oocytes until it can no longer do so. It does not enter into infertile periods and subsequently regain fertility. The question of whether sperm is available for those oocytes is an irrelevance - otherwise all semelparous females with inconsistent access to males would have to be considered iteroparous.
That being said, there are some issues: the Wikipedia entry for semelparity/iteroparity has this to say:
In truly semelparous species, death after reproduction is part of an overall strategy that includes putting all available resources into maximizing reproduction, at the expense of future life (see "Trade-offs", below).
Later in the entry the importance of reproduction being fatal is again emphasized. This phenomenon is not typical of
C. elegans reproduction, at least in lab conditions - they live long after their reproductive capability has ended. I will however stress that phrase "in lab conditions" - some other nematodes do die rapidly as they reach the end of their reproductive lifespan, and we look at
C. elegans biology under very weird conditions (non-native microbiota, high oxygen, largely 2D geometry, etcetera).
Also, the question of scale is somewhat confounding. Humans are listed as being iteroparous. This is of course correct - but if we were to step far enough back, we might miss the menstrual cycle and observe that human females had a single period of fertility lasting several decades. Note that the effects of pregnancy on fertility further complicate this comparison. Still: you overlook both of those (quite important!) caveats, and human fertility becomes something that arrives at maturity and lasts for a long time more-or-less continuously, then terminates a long time before the human’s natural lifespan ends. This (somewhat blinkered) view of human fertility sounds a lot like that of C. elegans! And for another similarity, note that the long survival of humans after their fertility has ended may be an artifact of “non-natural” conditions - prior to having civilization, agriculture, etcetera hominids may have rarely long outlived their fertility.
At the end of the day, I still think “semelparous” is the more closely accurate - but I rather question the usefulness of the terms, or their applicability.
PS one more point: it is briefly mentioned in the WormAtlas glossary that in a semelparous organism the period of fertility should be brief; I didn’t spot this formally stated in a quick glance at the Wikipedia entry (which in any case is hardly deep research), but all the examples given fit this criterion. Obviously, the period of reproductive fertility for C. elegans is quite long, relative to its lifespan and especially relative to its development time. This might be another point on the side of iteroparity. Or, taken another way, this bit of added confusion might be another reason to ignore this distinction.