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. There is consensus to keep. See the advice/analysis of Guliolopez et al. with relation to privacy and/or legal concerns Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Goold v Collins and Ors

Goold v Collins and Ors (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This article breaches the data protection laws of the Court of Justice of the European Union on 13 May 2014, the Irish General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) law of 25 May 2018 and the Supreme Court in Ireland.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Privacy Check ( talk • contribs)

How? Can you be more specific? AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 11:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC) reply

The Order published has been superseded by the High Court ruling of 3rd July 2019; the article currently published is out of date and irrelevant. Additionally Mr Justice Garrett Simons specifically requested it not to be published on any website. It would be a breach of Court rules to publish this Order on a public forum. Therefore it is suggested that the author/publisher contact Ms Justice Marie Baker for clarification on this matter

This publication has been used to undermine the parties' professional reputation within the Irish Universities; it is noted that the law educator in Maynooth University failed to consider redacting the names of the parties. Should the publisher wish to use the Order for teaching purposes it does not require publication in public forum. Processone ( talk) 14:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia does not allow me to upload a copy of Order whereby Mr Justice Simmons ordered not to publish

Perhaps there is an email address where I can send a copy instead?

thumb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Processone ( talk • contribs)

If, @ Processone:, you have concerns about the content of the article being contrary to libel laws or related rulings, then there is an email address mailbox, [email protected], you can contact. The Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects page has more information about what the people manning that mailbox will need to see (and context they will need to have) in order to review your concern. In that email you will, frankly, need to be more specific than you have been to date. In particular, proposing that contributors or representatives of the project directly contact the three separate judges you have mentioned is not going to be considered helpful or have the result you seem to expect. Guliolopez ( talk) 15:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Supreme Curt ordered that namies of parties are not to be published (12th July 2004) and High Court ordered that order was not to be published on website (3rd July 2019)

This page does not allow the copying and pasting of Court Orders but if a trusted email address is supplied, verification of the Orders not to publish article/names of parties will be provided. These Orders are not accessible be link as they are in-camera Processone ( talk) 09:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Hi Processone. As per previous notes, if you have evidence of this, please email it to the address above. And the relevant team members will review. Guliolopez ( talk) 10:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment - The following claim was made by the nominator on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Goold v Collins and Ors:

The content published in

/info/en/?search=Goold_v_Collins_and_Ors your websit[2016] IELCA 3 - Eileen Goold v Mary Collins a Judge of the DM District Court &%

breaches the data protection laws of the Court of Justice of the European Union on 13 May 2014, the Irish General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) law of 25 May 2018 and the Supreme Court in Ireland. The immediate removal of these URLs and any other related URLs from the public domain generally should be deleted:

The content published contains, in-camera and outdated information about an Irish citizen’s private life including matrimonial proceedings and the illness and death of her child. The Supreme Court ordered that the names of the parties therein would be kept confidential. Additionally the Order has been superseded by a High Court ruling of 3rd July 2019, whereby Mr Justice Garrett Simons specifically requested it not to be published on any website. These publications have caused the individual particular distress and they have especially been used to blacken the person’s name in the workplace Privacy Check ( talk) 21:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I can find absolutely no evidence to support this legal threat/claim. The website of the Courts Service of Ireland has, itself, published multiple extracts from related court proceedings. If a judge (as has been claimed) made baring orders in respect of this case, then it seems highly unlikely that the court itself would be acting in breach of those orders. The website of the Free Legal Advice Centre also publishes details of the case. And the case/decision record is published by the British and Irish Legal Information Institute. The claims made (that the publishing of the details of this case are contrary to law, regulation, statute or court order) are not supported by any evidence, precedence or otherwise. The claim that there is a barring order is unsupported, the claim that the GDPR applies is unsubstantiated, and the suggestion that implied suggestion/threat that the CJEU's Costeja judgement somehow applies is also unqualified. Guliolopez ( talk) 10:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply

The nominator appears to have made no other edits on Wikipedia other than attempt to have this article deleted. If the nominator can provide a link to the relevant orders then the article can be edited to comply. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 11:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment. Indeed. The nominator also went from claiming that the reason for deletion was "article breaches GDPR" and "article breaches Costeja ruling", to "article is out of date", to "article breaches a suppression order". If there was/is a suppression order, then why not start with that? Why make vague and nonspecific claims about the GDPR if there were concrete and specific court orders at play? Guliolopez ( talk) 13:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment There's this from the High Court but it does not support any of the claims made by the nominator: https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/f16c1904-c4e2-4edd-a6f3-35e76c258d3e/2015_IEHC_766_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 09:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Yup. I had made the same point (and linked the same document) immediately above. In short, if there was some kind of privacy or publication barring order (in relation to this case), then it seems likely that the court itself would be aware of (and responsive to) that order. It seems implausible that the court system itself (and several other legal advice and legal education bodies) would be acting in breach of such an order. If there was one. Guliolopez ( talk) 09:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply

Sorry-missed that link! AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 10:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Following the discussion above, and my own WP:BEFORE efforts, I do not support deletion based on the argument(s) made by the nominator. The argument (that the retention of this article constitutes a breach of privacy legislation or court protection order) doesn't stack up. And the argument (that the "article currently published is out of date and irrelevant") is not typically considered a valid reason for deletion. If there are other arguments to be made, then I am not aware of what they might be. Absent a valid or substantiated deletion argument, mine is a "keep" recommendation. Guliolopez ( talk) 11:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep. The nomination appears to have been specious. AugusteBlanqui ( talk) 13:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep I don't believe this nom has any merit whatever, and if it did, an AfD wouldn't be an appropriate way to pursue it. But the legalese, the officious approach and the fake-official user name of the nominator all do waft in a distinct smell of a rat. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 11:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Putting aside the legalese, this appears to be a request for deletion of the article on the grounds of privacy and one can have sympathy with that if well founded. However, the deletion arguments are not convincing - the decision of the CJEU of 13 May 2014 concerns the right to suppress links generated by internet search engines, and Irish law and rulings of the Irish courts are not enforceable outside Ireland. The decision of the Irish Supreme Court in 2004 is a matter of public record, has seemingly been so for 15+ years and it’s hard to see how the genie can now be stuffed back into the bottle. If there are genuine privacy concerns, this is not the way to go about it - Guliolopez has given appropriate advice above and it can be considered further there. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 15:14, 7 September 2020 (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.