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 keep per WP:SNOW. While the RTBF may affect us in the future, legal should decide when it impacts on us, not the community. (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 08:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Hutch[edit]

Gerry Hutch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per 'right to be forgotten' takedown by Google. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Under point 1, unless this is a pointy case of WP:SK #2. No policy-based reason for deletion specified. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I wouldn't consider this pointy, as this comes under a variant of DOLT, the concern was that given it's a BLP there were something in the article that wasn't meeting those criteria, and that was what got it "suppressed" by Google.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I AGF and take you at face value that this wasn't pointy, we haven't run into each other much, a nomination like this can easily appear as such. I appreciate you fleshing out your rationale here as well. It appears we will have quite a few eyes on the article now in any case, and any material that needs to be dealt with under our own policies will, I hope, be attended to promptly if they have not been already. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What got it "suppressed" by Google is a counter-productive European law which only applies to search engines. We're a content site, not a search engine- Denimadept (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Beyond the point made by Joe Decker, the Streisand effect is already starting to kick in, he is substantially more notable than he was before the media started covering the request. Monty₈₄₅ 16:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As an American based website, Wikipedia is not obliged to follow the European ruling. While the article is still in its early stages (after nearly nine years), Hutch appears to be well enough known in Ireland to merit inclusion. Now awareness of this article has suddenly grown, the problem is likely to be the prevention of editors' turning the this article into a vendetta against the subject. Philip Cross (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As specified above, there's no reason to delete this article. Even the Europeans are only saying the search engines can't point at it, not that the data needs to be removed here. We are not a search engine, so their rules don't apply. - Denimadept (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Wikipedia has it's own policy about contentious BLP though. It's also noted that the Irish Examiner Source in the article appears to be a dead link, rendering some of the articles claims, technically un-sourced.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the case — this is why we include an accessdate in online citations, because online pages change. Such a citation is no less valid than a citation to a print source. Nyttend (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nyttend is precisely right. Also note that the Wayback Machine has an archive of that, e.g., [1]. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No reason to delete and even if the original wasn't very notable (although as mentioned above he's very well known in Ireland) the right to be forgotten request has increased the article profile significantly. Hideki (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Decidedly so. Subject is notable and deserving of this article. Agree this will attract more attention to article, so it just needs to be watched for bias creep. We cannot just begin deleting articles based on Google or European terms. Fylbecatulous talk 17:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and trout whale nominator. The "right to be forgotten" bullshit is something that makes me ashamed to be a European. It's already bad enough that search engines are forced to pull results people happen to dislike. It would be immensely worse if we begin to swallow this poison and self-censor ourselves obeying the whims of BLP subjects (something which is already dangerously present in some editors' view). Someone who nominates articles to self-censor WP is clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia, and, if WP had some balls, would be subject to sanctions. Even thinking of creating such dangerous precedents is a horrible, horrible move. That aside, notable, no policy reason for nomination, etc.etc.-keep that.--cyclopia^speak! 17:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the nomination of this article for discussion is a good idea, it may not be based upon policy, but it allows discussion wrt. the EU law, and whether wikipedia should follow a google notice, and the right to self censor. It is a good idea to set a precedent in this matter. As for self censor, there are times when it is good, e.g. the victims of crime, but I believe wikipedia already has this covered. Martin451 19:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He has been the subject of TV shows, which pretty clearly establishes notability. I would wonder if this attempt at deletion is done at the behest of Mr. Hutch's request, which would make it against Wikipedia's polices for editing your own article. Nodekeeper (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why the assumption of bad faith? I have absolutely no links with the subject of the article. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. I'l be delighted to get involved in stoking up drama on behalf of Google once they start paying me. Formerip (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Agree completely with Joe Decker. No valid reason for deletion advanced by the nominator, Speedy Close under s.1. Tzvecl (talk 17:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The link removal notice doesn't actually specify which search queries have had to have been 'forgotten'. Could be anything, really? It's probably a good idea to review the article for anything contrary to WP:BLP, but WP:AFD is hardly the best method - a cleanup tag or an WP:RFC might have been more useful. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The very first sentence "he is said to be....", a whole unsourced paragraph abut his alleged criminal past, full of unsourced statements, not massively notable in the first place. The Right to be Forgotten law is nonsense, but this article isn't much better and some people commenting above need to get off their moral pedestals. Furhtermore, most of the Keep !votes relate to the RTBF law (irrelevant at AfD) or are simply "he's notable". Black Kite (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just before Secret's contribution below, this discussion was closed. I reverted the close.—S Marshall T/C 18:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• One reason that everyone is talking about the right to be forgotten law, is that until your comment, no one has put forward a policy based reason to delete the article. Monty₈₄₅ 18:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per subject request as a marginal WP:BLP, fails WP:BLP1E as he is only known for one event which is a bank robbery, everything else the article claims is non-notable (being a taxi driver for celebrties). Almost none of the keep votes are policy based and should be discounted by closer. Black Kite is absolutely correct here. Secret ^account 18:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no indication of any request made by the article subject. The request to Google was probably not made by the subject, since the article is still findable in Europe using his name as a search term. But, in any event, we don't know and no-one is likely to tell us. Formerip (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of the people mentioned by name in this article, the only one who triggers Google's censorship warning is Felix McKenna. 2.103.236.122 (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should be cautious, but that would be extraordinary, because it would mean that Google thinks it is within its rights to act on a RTBF request relating to a statement made by someone in their capacity as a senior public official. Formerip (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sort of with Black Kite but not quite. We've got to have something here because of the incoming link from The Telegraph, but we should not be displaying this kind of BLP violation and it's particularly bad when the page is this prominent because of links from reliable news websites. A sysop should remove and revision-delete the defamatory content, and WP:TNT is the best way. Then we can put in a non-defamatory stub.—S Marshall T/C 18:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea, but I'm not entirely sure what you could put in a stub. If you take everything unsourced out, you're left with practically zero notability anyway. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If nothing else, you could put up an image of the takedown notice from Commons. The takedown is itself notable. We need to remove the unsourced negative material about a living person, because, duh, but turning this into a redlink does not strike me the most brilliant move either, given the circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 19:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: Not a top of the range BLP by any means. Needs a cleanup and improved sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Comment The BLP violation claim is at least partially preposterous, since the criminal past and its details are sourced in the article to this reference. Other references can be easily found, e.g. [2]. If some sentences show problems with BLP, they can be trimmed, but still they are no reason to delete. In fact, what can be dealt by editing should be dealt by editing, not deletion, per our deletion policy (while WP:TNT is only a -debatable- essay). The "keep" votes are addressing the deletion rationale; as the deletion rationale is not policy based, they correctly point this (and the dangers of such a rationale).--cyclopia^speak! 18:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So we're allowed to use a source that says "Hutch planned his robberies with great care, and despite the fact the gardaí are convinced he pulled off two major robberies, he has never spent a day in jail for either." to say that he is a major armed robber? I think not. Black Kite (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The same source you quote starts with "Ireland’s most successful armed robber Gerry ‘The Monk’ Hutch".--cyclopia^speak! 18:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ...yet provides no evidence to show that he actually is. It appears to have assumed that he actually did commit the two robberies mentioned above. Don't get me wrong, the man is clearly no saint, but we need better sourcing than that to write such a statement in Wikipedia's voice. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sourcing has been added. Google Books has this guy covered, books by Penguin, entire chapters about him. -- GreenC 19:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added that, but I should add that I'm seeing a lot of Paul Williams (Irish journalist) in the sourcing I've found so far, and continue to look for a broader range of attribution. We're all trying to do the right thing, but let's actually look carefully at everything before jumping too fast, getting the right answer here is going to be important, both for the subject and for Wikipedia. I don't mind people taking a careful stand in either direction. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are plenty of sources available online. Just because there may be BLP violations doesn't mean that we need to delete it. However, I would have no objection to deletion followed by immediate recreation. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 18:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Although he was previously notable for one event now he is notable for two and that is the whole "right to be forgotten" by Google. Now we are dealing with the publicity of this takedown notice which is ironic because the law is suppose to remove this mans existence from search engines but is essentially doing the opposite. I don't think this is an appropriate time to delete this article with all the attention arising from this new law. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, no - someone applying for RTBF (regardless of whether they have a Wikipedia article) doesn't make them notable. It could be mentioned in an article about the issue, however. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• At some point, enough reliable sources discussing his particular right to be forgotten case will make him notable for it. If someone really wanted to get technical, they could argue that the article should be about his right to be forgotten case, with only a secondary mention of his criminal background, just as how we sometimes have an article about the crime, but not a separate one about the individual. Still, it looks like Gerry Hutch is notable for both, so that is probably not a good solution here. Monty₈₄₅ 18:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, without any doubt. There is no suggestion that any of the content is in error, and there are proper sources included. For a *world-wide* accessed page there should be no doubts about this. --AlisonW (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. procedural keep, nominator has not provided a valid reason for deletion. Also as above, the Streisand effect makes this page notable in itself, the page has received new coverage. Martin451 18:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: The article is now almost as notable for being the first wikipedia page to be requested removed from Google's index, let alone the man himself, who is undoubtedly world-famous by now. Keep. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per joe decker. No valid reason cited for deletion. ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 19:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable Irish criminal with tons of reliable sources. Books, newspapers. -- GreenC 19:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I do respect that someone wants to be "forgotten" and removed from Google etc. But you can not erase your past. He might feel shame of whatever but this is a solid case of notability through reliable sources. No way this should be deleted.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable for being a major former Irish criminal. Also I though the EU ruling told Google to hide certain articles from its results, nothing gets deleted. Why is Wikipedia, a world wide but US based entity obeying EU law? Perhaps the clever peeps at Wikimedia Foundation can implement a check on readers IP, so those only outside the EU can read the article? ;-) Snappy (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Invalid deletion rationale. Resolute 19:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep I can see no reason whatsoever under wikipedia guidelines to remove this. Nor under EU law, as has been mentioned the ridiculous "right to be forgotten" only applies to search engines. Fork me (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The major issue is that if we remove this article based on the rationale for it stated by the nom. Then soon we will see more influential people requesting to be removed. How would we respond to Barack Obama wanting to be "forgotten" or whoever else. This is not even up for discussion in my opinion. If you are notable and there are a Wiki article about you, then it should stay on.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep google getting a notice is not us getting a notice. Its not BLP1e, its an entire career of crime, and one that has been covered by many sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SNOW Keep 94.5.4.135 (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ironically the story that Hutch wants to be removed from Wikipedia could actually be something that should be added to his Wikipedia article. As it is quite notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all it's not necessarily Hutch himself wanting to be removed, it could be anybody. This law only applies to search engines, as far as I am aware. I wonder how one sends such letter to Google anyways. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and do not SNOW close. The original nom rationale obviously should fail because it's not based on local policy, but there are potential BLP1E problems with this article that at a minimum merit discussion. Townlake (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep RTBF seems to only apply to Google itself, not to the original source of content. In other words, Google can't direct users here who are looking for this individual, but there's nothing preventing Wikipedia from having an article and directing users who use its internal search function from finding it. --McDoobAU93 20:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What Google takedown? I searched for "gerry hutch" a minute ago, and got huge amounts of stuff about the "notorious criminal", including this article. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: See Talk:Gerry_Hutch#Removal_from_Google_Search. It now looks as though the blocking is related to the name of a retired Irish police officer mentioned in the article, and is nothing to do with Hutch.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Invalid rationale. According to the court ruling, the material may remain on the Internet, but must not be indexed by Google (making it harder to find). However, people wishing to find the material can still use an uncensored search engine (cf. Google China#Ending of self-censorship). Also, the court ruling has no effect on Wikipedia, which is hosted in the United States. According to the EU court ruling, individuals may only request removal of information from Google if it is incorrect or outdated. For this reason, there may be BLP issues in the article, but this is a separate problem. If it is found that there are BLP problems in the article, the article could maybe be deleted for that reason instead. Also, could someone explain exactly why Google's European websites show this article? I just tried searching for "Gerry Hutch" on Google.se and this article came up as the first hit. Same on Google.dk, Google.de, Google.it, Google.nl, Google.co.uk and Google.ie. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's to do with the name of someone OTHER than the article subject, can the article be re-worded to remove that name? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've e-mailed User:GeoffBrigham (WMF) and told him about the likely cause being the retired Irish police officer. This could be a simple WP:BLPNAME issue which has been blown up out of all proportion.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Felix' name doesn't really add value to this person's biography editorially, I've removed it. I won't war it, but I don't see his name as adding encyclopedic value here. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the question: Google doesn’t remove URLs completely from its results, it removes them from the results for certain search terms. Chirlu (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator- Time to apply WP:SNOW providing someone raises the BLP concerns elsewhere? Not suprised by the response here.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seemed obvious, based on WP's own policies.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do your part and employ the procedure laid out at WP:WDAFD, please? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is not even close to a WP:BLP1E issue since conditions #1, #2, and #3 all fail (it only takes one to fail not to be BLP1E). I am One of Many (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Until 'right to be forgotten' becomes WP policy, i.e. when hell freezes over and the project looses any remaining sense of purpose. RashersTierney (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per WP:SNOW - Subject is a notable former Irish criminal who has received significant coverage from numerous independent, reliable sources. BLP violations is not a valid reason to delete the article. American-based website, Wikipedia, is not obliged to follow an European ruling of "right to be forgotten" for search engines. The Streisand effect from the ruling has caused the article to now gain even more notability. Also, if this article is removed based on the deletion rationale then this has the potential to open the floodgates for requests of other articles to be deleted as well. Tanbircdq (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Tanbircdq, article is very well referenced. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please can the next person to view this page who has not already voted close the discussion. Please can the next person to see that the discussion has been closed recognise that it is a lost cause and leave it that way. Formerip (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no valid reason stated for deletion by the nominator. I haven't ever played the censorship card before, but this seems like an attempt to do just that. See also Wikipedia:PEREN#Legal_issues. --Jakob (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its now clear that this article is not going to be deleted per WP:SNOW. Can someone close this discussion already. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - What absolute bollox, No valid reason for deletion at all, Just because Google's removing it doesn't mean we literally should. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the nomination is not based on the Wikipedia rules. And if that crimer wants to remove any information about his crimes, Wikipedia must not make what the crimer wants to. The truth must to survive, and a censorship is inallowable! Gamliel Fishkin (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Seriously, why are people still voting. Close! Close! Close! Formerip (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Close Would some admin take the initiative and close this drama-fest. RashersTierney (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: "right to be forgotten" is not a valid reason to delete. --Carnildo (talk) 02:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: The idea that WP be censored on the basis of European legal whim is offensive. Go censor Europedia, f$#@ off out of here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.172 (talk) 02:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First of all, Wikipedia is based in the U.S., so European law should have no effect here. Secondly, Streisand effect. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 03:35, August 7, 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Nominator's rationale is completely nonsensical and not based on any Wikipedia policy. Artichoker^[talk] 03:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.