I'm wondering why my answer to How do I enable Ubuntu (using full disk encryption) to call LUKSsupend before sleeping/suspending to RAM? was deleted and if it could be considered for restoration. I thought that there was enough information there that at the very least it could be used as a framework for a Community answer. As it is there is currently no answer whatsoever.
Bold links in this post point to pages associated with the deleted answer: those pages won't be accessible to you if you're not the author of this question, a user with <=10k rep, or a moderator. I've written this answer with the intention of being clear even when those sources are inaccessible.
Originally, when posted on May 6, your answer looked like this:
You could try reaching out to the folks at https://unix.stackexchange.com/, since your trying to modify an arch script, someone there may have familiarity with both platforms or better yet, https://stackoverflow.com/
That is not an answer at all.
Subsequent content appears to have been added though editing, turning what was originally not a real answer into something that now is (but has other problems instead). You added it after the answer was deleted.
In your edits you added a large amount of text from this source. This raises a copyright problem, discussed in Oli's meta answer, and is sufficient reason not to undelete the answer in its current form.
But it couldn't have been deleted originally for that reason, because the copied content hadn't been added at that time. It was deleted because it was not actually an attempt to answer the question, even partially. See Why and how are some answers deleted? for more information.
It was copypasta. You took content that wasn't yours and posted it all. Our Terms and Conditions require you to grant copyright licenses on your content to SE in order for them to be able to republish it. In order to do that you need to own it (or have certain privileges over it). This is all covered in section 3 but the pointy bit is:
Subscriber (you) warrants, represents and agrees Subscriber has the right to grant Stack Exchange and the Network the rights set forth above.
As far as we can tell, you don't. The content isn't explicitly licensed in a way that suggests it's re-distributable under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and there's nothing to suggest it's yours.
And the cherry on top (though legally and topically irrelevant), you didn't reformat the code samples.