Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have petitioned for the right to be forgotten


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

List of people who have petitioned for the right to be forgotten

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was created in the immediate aftermath of the 'right to be forgotten' controversies (and its relationship to Wikipedia), during Wikimania. From a high point of 3, the article has now been reduced down to a list of 1 item. As such, it might make more sense to merge/redirect this to the article Right to be forgotten. Perhaps in the future the list might become extensive, who knows. Obviously there's a degree of moral ambiguity about the purpose of this article and I'm not quite sure what I feel about it. But I would suggest that this article, with this title, is being deliberately antagonistic. I think we can address the focus of this article within the context of the Right to be Forgotten article. Wittylama 10:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - generally speaking I agree that this information belongs in other articles. I would add an observation that claiming the "right to be forgotten" doesn't in itself make someone notable. The Land (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete (or redirect; either works) I agree entirely with WL (and was already thinking about whether to list this for deletion, so glad he got here before me). This is best dealt with in the context of RtbF - where we can touch on individual cases as and when appropriate to help explain the issue - rather than pulling out a somewhat confrontational list of people. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wittylama's sensible observations and per my extended remarks on the Talk page at "Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González". As far as this list is concerned, the thrust of those latter remarks is that the endeavor is misguided because the so-called "right to be forgotten" (properly "right to erasure") ruling seeks to balance the rights of individuals with the public interest. It is thus likely that successful applicants will not be notable and their names thus not included in the encyclopaedia on BLP grounds. RR 2014 (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect to Right to be forgotten. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Am I missing something, or is this an invitation to simply have the link to this page removed from search engine results in Europe? If these people are not notable, what purpose does this list serve?  Can anyone explain this to me?  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete TOOT-TOOT! All aboard the S.S. NavelGazer! Protonk (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Leave as is Of course I do not support the current reduction of the article to a single name nor removal/merging of the article into another. I believe that listing the names of petitioners is truly important and a legitimate public good. That there are three easily documentable names on the (platonic version of the) list now represents a lack of public knowledge, not a dearth of facts. This list will undoubtedly grow in the future. The fact of these petitions is certainly notable in public discourse and represents a topic about which people, now and in the future, will have both legitimate research interest and curiosity, and I believe that we all have an interest in making the names of these people easy to locate for those purposes. Jeremybornstein (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm curious to know the basis of the "Of course", other than pique as the creator of this list. Of the three names you added, one (Costeja) is the original plaintiff in the case, multiply documented world-wide, another (Mosley) is not a "right to be forgotten" case as his own lawyers have attested (rather he is suing Google for carrying links to images of him illegally published on the internet), and the third (redacted) is the plainest possible violation of the community's BLP policy as I've noted on the [[Talk:List_of_people_who_have_petitioned_for_the_right_to_be_forgotten#Jeremybornstein edit revert |

Talk page]]. You will surely admit that this does not inspire reader's confidence in your competence here, and the more so when we reflect that the very title of the list is a misnomer as in general (the case in the third case) we will not know who in fact made the application for take-down. When I check your contribution history, I see that you have made less than 150 edits over a ten year period, about one a month, none of them on a remotely related topic and none of them involving Wikipedia policy. I respectively submit that the closing admin need not attach too much weight to your vote. RR 2014 (talk) 05:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The "of course" was intended to indicate that my viewpoint is probably clear given that I created the article. I'm not very interested in arguing on the internet; I've attempted to make a contribution in good faith and you folks can sort this out yourselves as you like. I don't anticipate coming back very frequently. Jeremybornstein (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems you should be prepared to argue your case when you make what you must surely have recognised would be a controversial edit. I invite you to, I am genuinely curious to understand your position. Why do you suppose, for example, that Wikipedia does not carry a List of people who have been convicted of child sexual abuse offences, its own in-house implementation of Megan's Law? Would that not be an important and legitimate public good? RR 2014 (talk) 09:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Talking about my edit history, when you are clearly a sock-puppet? Rich. You look like a paid troll to me. You're a great example of what's wrong with this place. Jeremybornstein (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I invited you to debate your contribution. It's clear you're not interested in doing that. Regarding your assertion that you're acting in good faith, I'm prepared to accept that you are (nevertheless you can't be said to be extending the same courtesy to me, can you?), but that unfortunately is not enough, competence is required as well. As for me I am a citizen of the European Union. I love the Union and I love its laws. RR 2014 (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Quite unnecessarily generates a Streisand effect for the non-notable individuals involved. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Can I just expand on a remark I made about the name being a misnomer - that we usually cannot be sure who made the take-down request? Consider this case in Ireland which concerns a University of Limerick lecturer who assaulted a student in a football match. The lecturer was later fined €1000,000. Now it's all too easy to assume it was the lecturer who made the application. But in fact if you go to the original article, you can see the student was named and had expressed dismay at the size of the payout. He would have preferred a nominal sum of damages and a proper apology instead. It's quite within the bounds of possibility that it was the student himself who made the take-down application, worrying perhaps about the effect the publicity would have on his career, possibly even the fact that he hd come into a substantial sum of money. As article 96 of the Costeja ruling makes it clear, it is not necessary that the information is prejudicial to the applicant. The same for the countless cases of victims of sexual assault linked by name by Google: many would no doubt want their details removed. Likewise the victims of so-called revenge pornography. That is not yet illegal in all EU jurisdictions and the victims' only recourse is thus "right to be forgotten" (the ruling properly is that search engines are date controllers and must consider take-down requests).
 * The fact is that this list is a thoroughly poorly thought out proposition, good faith or otherwise, and should be deleted. RR 2014 (talk) 10:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I recognise that the road to drama is necessarily built on the backs of living people, but we don't have to create more drama articles. Really, we don't. bobrayner (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Bobrayner.  This article was ill-advised and seems like a BLP violation just waiting to happen.  Bad idea all around and no good can come of it – only further drama and legal threats.  Also fails to satisfy WP:LISTN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is just a bad idea. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect, so far not enough notable names to justify a standalone list. -- cyclopia speak! 12:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.