There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#RFC: delete and redirect that asks: "Should our default practice be to delete article histories and contributions when a small article is converted into a redirect to a larger article?" Cunard (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't need it up for long. I just need it up long enough to copy the data (mainly, it's the Honest Trailers link's info, which might have the name sandbox1. Then I don't care what happens to it. I had the page up for several months after being told by admins it was fine to do so, then someone (ponyo (Jezebel's ponyo)) found mine due to an unrelated page and speedily deleted it without warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjshick (talk • contribs) 04:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Andrewjshick: I see that you're currently talking to @Ponyo: here. You were also warned about restoring the content here. This is a "not done and will not be done" situation for myself and likely for any other admin. Ponyo offered to e-mail you the content to use elsewhere, but rather than take his olive branch you just tried to re-create the info on Wikipedia. Basically, how can we trust that this isn't your way of trying to re-create the material elsewhere on Wikipedia and sneak under the radar? I must warn you - if this is re-created anywhere else on Wikipedia you run a very strong risk of getting blocked from editing for being disruptive. I hate to sound harsh, but you need to understand that you're really going the wrong way about all of this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• OK, I see some of the confusion now. Here's the general gist of everything:

Back in June @SamWalton: asked you to stop adding information to the main Screen Junkies article because it was disruptive. He suggested that you make a draft in your userspace, likely with this would give you more time to work on things and finesse them. It was not meant to mean that you could use it as an indefinite storage space and only meant to be a temporary holding facility for data that would be placed on Wikipedia. Eventually you and the other account (which I've blocked as a promotional username) posted the content to the mainspace, where it was deleted at AfD as miscellaneous information that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. This occurred on December 6, 2015.

On December 11 you and the other account created the draft article at User:ScreenJunkiesMovieFightsandTVFights/sandbox, after the AfD closed. This was actually the first sandbox that was deleted, as Ponyo didn't delete User:Andrewjshick/sandbox until 22:52 on December 11, a few minutes after the first deletion at 22:49. Shortly after the deletion of the first page, it was quickly re-created by ScreenJunkiesMovieFightsandTVFights.

The problem here is ultimately that as soon as the AfD was closed, the content became unusable on Wikipedia. It was seen as listcruft, information that would pretty much never be usable on Wikipedia. Could all of this have been handled better? Yes. But were the deletions still correct? Yes. At this point all that we can ultimately offer you is an e-mail with this information, which should be e-mailed out by Ponyo. I believe that you didn't really know any better, but it really wasn't a good idea for the other account to try to re-create the data so swiftly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Something else I noted was that a new account was created around the same time as the new sandbox article was created, which kind of gives off the impression that this was created solely to hold this information. Someone did ask what the relationship was between the two accounts, which I don't think that you ever really answered. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

As an FYI, the accounts were  Technically indistinguishable. I emailed the content of the sandboxes to Andrewjshick and provided them with the links to alternative websites to post the material as well as instructions for setting up their own wiki. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)