Right to be forgotten can apply to anything where a private business has my data.

Case-in-point: Facebook. Most people don't believe that when you ask a company like Facebook or Google to delete your account, they actually delete your data. Sure, you no longer have access to it, definitely, but most people seem to assume that it's not entirely gone.

RTBF ensures that companies whom you provided information to delete this information if asked to politely.

I was hoping that it would be narrowed.

Or if I'm, say, a lesbian activist I can request the doxxing of my activities be hidden, so that I may live without persecution.

Or I'm a, 18 year old caught in a Romeo & Juliet, with my face plastered across Facebook as a "sex offender", but it's later overturned (or, as I call it, sanity prevailed). Should I have a right to be forgotten?

Or... the list of possibilities continues.

I'm not trying to argue the respective pros/cons. OP just asked for an example of when RTBF would be a good thing excluding in the case of criminals.

This is a big point of confusion. A background check will check the court records, where your convictions will still be listed (unless protected from disclosure e.g. California background checks generally don't show convictions > 7 years https://www.goodhire.com/california/background-checks).

A real con artist can just fake someone's ID, for them it's pretty trivial.

The issue is less than 1% of convictions ever make it to the Internet, and those people currently will be stigmatized forever, unlike the other 99%, unless they have this mechanism. Google's plea was 'we will self police, but we won't tell you how. We will ignore court orders, because we choose to'. The court objected to that approach.

If you are convicted of new crimes, no matter how long ago, then your sentence may be significantly increased as a repeat offender.

I guess it depends where you live. In my country faking IDs is hard as we use biometric documents and it's a very serious crime, so many small time tricksters will not do that. There's a tone of small online merchants, lousy businessmen, crooks, etc. pulling small tricks on people - taking money and not providing anything in return, or providing really bad service, or you order one thing and they send you something else. Since CC payments are still not that common here and it's not uncommon that you wire your money to the merchant and then you're not covered by usual money-back guarantees from the bank and visa, and you need to complain to them and threaten to sue them and then they usually give you money back after a few months, using it meanwhile for their own profit. They do that on purpose. However, if you know better usually you can google them and find people complaining about being tricked, so you can avoid falling in the trap. I'm not talking about big media news, but usually forum posts or tweets and things like that, and you can't find those ever without a help of google. I do this every time I buy something online from a local seller. Since this is EU, if this right to be forgotten becomes a common law they'll be able to completely cover their tracks and I see that as a real-life problem for me and many others here.

You don’t always know why companies discriminate against a potential employee. They don’t just tell you why they refused to hire someone.

So, employers don’t get access to criminal records, and generally, newspapers can’t republish information about people in a way that would harm their life today. Even criminals whose cases were public when they went into jail have a right to a normal life after they’ve finished their sentence – sometimes this is included with a change of name, but ideally, it’d be better if we, as society, would just forgive, or forget.

Tell that to a celeb that the press decides to monster - Cliff Richards case vs the BBC is a current example.

While it's generally an offence to disclose spent convictions, the press is still free to publish details about them. Right to be forgotten means that those looking for such articles are unlikely to find them.