K2 Intelligence ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

hi, found this after reading a lot of pages. So, this page was speedy deleted G-11 something that says promotion which leads to the tone of content. I believe I carefully checked the tone and tried to cover all the instructions in the guidelines but it was deleted. If there were problem areas it was better if the page was edited or allowed me to clean up the problem areas. I believe the subject is notable and willing to edit the promotional factor if any but I am unable too find the page. The person who placed a speedy delete seems like a person who is software engineer and may not have a close look at the references. Please guide thanks Sandy Fluffy ( talk) 22:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I haven't seen the original, but this appeal is difficult to read, and it appears that the author is having difficulty with English. I would advise the author to request assistance at the Teahouse in editing a draft in draft space rather than pursue this here. Have you tried discussing with either the tagging New Page Patrol reviewer, User:creffett, or the deleting administrator, User:Justlettersandnumbers? It appears that this page was originally nominated as G11 and A7, and was deleted as G11 and G12, copyright violation, so it seems unlikely that the page will be restored. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment It looks like a pretty marginal case for G11 to me, and the G12 URL seems to point to the wrong place (I'm not seeing any duplication of that news article). The lead section seems to be at least partially copied from their about page, but I'm not sure about the rest of the page, and if not all of the substantial content is copyrighted it isn't G12 eligible either. I'm reserving judgement on whether it meets the criteria for inclusion, but it might be better to have draftified or listed it at AfD. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 04:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The only thing lifted from that article is the second 2013 entry, about Thacher. On the other hand, several of the other referenced timeline entries (the other 2013, the 2015, the second 2016, the first 2018) are also lifted verbatim from their references, and much of the lede is taken from K2's site. — Cryptic 12:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply
• Close as failing sniff test. The appeal above and the text of the deleted article, while ostensibly from the same account, are clearly not written by the same person. Sentence structure, diction, and grammar show radically differing mastery of English. I'm not sure what's going on, but it's obvious we're being played. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC) reply