The right to be forgotten is a debate worth having as there are individuals that may have historical public records that may be false or no longer in the public interest to be so widely available.
E.g: Man falsely but not maliciously accused of rape or murder in press reports and later being exonerated in court without accompanying press report detailing the exoneration, and now finds it very difficult to get a job or start new relationships. Or a business man who filled for bankruptcy 30 years ago who finds search engines return news reports of his bankruptcy as the first and only return on himself and thus makes finding business partners or credit near impossible.
These seem like people who need protection from a age when its far far too easy to get access to the historical public record, but removing a factually true report that is just two years old seems a bit extreme; without knowing the full context.
What the right to be forgotten should be is some kind of mechanism of adding friction back to the process of getting certain kinds of information when it is in the public interest that this information shouldn't be so easy to get at. It should not be about removing public records altogether. How you do that without inadvertently harming the public interest or allowing abuse seems like a pretty hard or impossible problem.