Victor Carlstrom (whistleblower): WP:BEFORE only returns similar, unreliable, sources.  Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO .  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 07:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Sweden ,  and United States of America .  AlexandraAVX ( talk ) 07:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I looked through the main Swedish news archive to try to find good sources to save this article, but only found a press release.  // Julle ( talk ) 13:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's because Swedish media censored his case since Victor Carlstrom's exposed corruption and money laundering within the elite in Sweden and sued them for 4,2 billion USD.  This people did a "catch and kill" in the Swedish media.  But court documents don't lie and his case was real and his asylum is real.  Then only right wing media in America writes about the case because the left wing media in Sweden is the same people as the left wing media in America and Sweden only have left wing media bescially.  But again this case is the perfect example why Wikipedia should not be a trusted source of information since here we have court documents and right wing media such as NewsMax and Townhall supporting everything but only because left wing media is the people Victor Carlstrom exposed and it does not fit their narrative he has to be deleted.  Maybe re name Wikipedia to Fake News Source of information?  Or some Wikipedia admins can stop falling for the group thing, show some courage and restore the page .  Rionass ( talk ) 07:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I have little hope of convincing you, but most people here are far more interested in Wikiepdia's norms and guidelines than in being footsoldiers in the cultural wars.  Politics is less important than the encyclopedia.  We try to understand notability and verifiability as we perceive them.  There's no great conspiracy: Everyone else who's been involved in the conversation keeps an eye on all Sweden-related topics which are up for deletion and comment in a number of those discussions – we try to find sources to save articles according to the Wikipedian guidelines (having an article on a topic is generally more desirable than not having an article), and in this case we failed.  / Julle ( talk ) 08:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  I found nothing that makes him notable in reliable sources.  Sjö ( talk ) 13:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Court documents is a reliable as they get and several articles in Townhall, NewsMax and other right wing media.  Left wing media censored this and now same people want to delete his Wikipedia page.  It's so obvious even a child can see what happens here.  Rionass ( talk ) 07:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete no coverage.  Draken Bowser ( talk ) 07:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's very obvious this person Victor Carlstrom is notable, first Swedish Citizen with asylum protection in America put him in same category as Edward Snowden.  On op of that he sued Sweden and it's largest banks and power people for 4,2 billion USD, frankly I don't know any Swedish person who is more notable, and he also have over a million followers on social media.  This is the perfect example why Wikipedia is NOT a credible or reliable source of information and should not appear on Google.  It's because the only reason some want to delete this page it's because his case does not fit the narrative they have, plus the powerful people Victor Carlstrom sued controls the media in Sweden and elsewhere and the powerful people did a "catch and kill" which is paid the media to suppress the case.  The same people within the media who suppressed his the case, also have unlimited of accounts on Wikipedia who deletes everything that doesn't fit the narrative where this is a very good example.  If this article is deleted it would serve as the perfect example why no one should trust Wikipedia.  If some admins on Wikipedia act without group think and on the facts this page will be restored.  Everyone reading this knows this is exactly as it is, so it will be very interesting to see what happens to Victor Carlstrom's page.  Rionass ( talk ) 07:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We're not here to right great wrongs .  If you do have decent sources, please provide a link.  Draken Bowser ( talk ) 07:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Sure I will give more than enough of sources, here is 108 court fillings from federal court in New York and Court of appeals in the second circuit, fillings confirm everything in the NewsMax, TownHall and the articles below, plus confirm his asylum, it's cased closed for this page to stay up.  https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11569/528545 Here is more articles confirms the things in the court fillings.  https://www.lx.com/news/true-crime-tuesday-on-the-run/19127/ https://www.europeanfinancialreview.com/whistleblower-victor-carlstrom-epic-scale-150b-escalation-against-financial-corruption/ https://money.usnews.com/financial-advisors/articles/advising-clients-on-using-a-backdoor-roth-ira https://bmmagazine.co.uk/business/the-plight-of-recent-whistleblowers/ https://www.hometownstation.com/tag/victor-carlstrom https://bmmagazine.co.uk/business/victor-carlstrom-from-a-list-to-asylum-seeker/ https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN21K11S/ https://casetext.com/case/carlstrom-v-livforsakring-1 https://tass.com/press-releases/1101627 https://mlexmarketinsight.com/news/insight/swedbank-secures-dismissal-of-self-styled-whistleblower-s-us-lawsuit If Wikipedia was a credible source of information, some admins would block all the account who participated in the coordinated attack to delete Victor Carlstrom's page since it's very obvious all this accounts it's the left wing media journalist accounts, the same people who protect the powerful people Victor Carlstrom sued and same people who suppress the case.  By reading court documents we clearly know this case has happened, therefor it's the same as a scandal happens about very powerful people and some media don't report about it, then people say only because the media didn't report it never happen.  But the scandal still happened how much power and money the people in power might have.  I screen record this request to delete Victor Carlstrom's page and it will serve as a schoolbook example later why Wikipedia should not be trusted.  Rionass ( talk ) 13:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The standard for inclusion is higher than just proving something exists, court documents do not count towards Notability .  The standard is "in depth coverage" in third party reliable sources (again, reputable ones).  Draken Bowser ( talk ) 19:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 3 articles in credible sources approved by Wikipedia and written by very credible Gavin Wax, President of the Republican Party in New York and Donald Trump's right hand man.  On top of that the facts in the article is supported by 108 court fillings with thousands of court documents from federal court in New York and courts of appeals.  Cased closed the Wikipedia page about Victor Carlstrom should stay up and not be deleted.  https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11569/528545 https://townhall.com/columnists/gavinwax/2022/07/27/the-untold-story-on-why-turkey-is-keeping-sweden-and-finland-out-of-nato-n2610833 https://www.newsmax.com/gavinwax/globalism-fraud-sweden/2021/02/16/id/1010228/ https://www.newsmax.com/amp/gavinwax/sweden-turkey-drugtrafficking/2021/06/24/id/1026328/ Rionass ( talk ) 03:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is the facts.  Victor Carlstrom has two things make him reach the standard of notability without any doubt.  1. First Swedish person with asylum in America.  Same category as Edward Snowden.  This is a very big deal.  2. Filed the largest lawsuit in Sweden's history, a lawsuit of 4,2 billion dollar against Swedish authorities, Swedish banks and the elite of power in Sweden.  Both this facts are described in 3 credible articles in 2 news outlets approved by Wikipedia.  The article is written by the president of Republican Party in New York and Donald Trump's right hand man Gavin Wax.  The facts in the articles is also supported by 108 court fillings with thousands of court documents.  Case closed, the Wikipedia page should not be deleted.  Then it's very obvious what happened here.  Victor Carlstrom's has been a strong critics against the Swedish media monopoly with Bonnier and Schibsted controlling the Swedish media.  And the defendants in this case did a "catch and kill" with the case which is they paid Bonnier and Schibsted in some way to over up the case for the people of Sweden.  Bonnier and Schibsted has hundreds of accounts on Wikipedia try to controlling the narrative and some of this accounts attacking this page, because they need to do that to keep cover up the case for the public of Sweden.  That's why I said if Wikipedia was a credible source of information, any admin should go in and block all account's want to delete Victor Carlstrom's Wikipedia page since it would be to clean the house of fraudulent and very bias account on Wikipedia, responsible for a lot of coverups and painting wrong narratives to the public, such as Covid came from a bat in Wuhan.  Links below supporting every word I just wrote.  https://dockets.justia.com/docket/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11569/528545 https://townhall.com/columnists/gavinwax/2022/07/27/the-untold-story-on-why-turkey-is-keeping-sweden-and-finland-out-of-nato-n2610833 https://www.newsmax.com/gavinwax/globalism-fraud-sweden/2021/02/16/id/1010228/ https://www.newsmax.com/amp/gavinwax/sweden-turkey-drugtrafficking/2021/06/24/id/1026328/ All facts support the Wikipedia page should not be deleted and restored.  Rionass ( talk ) 03:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Court filings don't count towards notability.  The monetary amount is of no interest, this is America, you could sue almost anyone for any amount.  Also, Newsmax is not considered reliable (see WP:NEWSMAX ), and Townhall is not considered reliable for news reporting.  He might be in the same category as Snowden, but the lack of reliable news sources proves that he is of no relative importance and as of now not notable .  He could become notable in the future should the lawsuit gain traction and media attention, but it is not the role of an encyclopedia to predict the future .  Draken Bowser ( talk ) 07:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Additionally, at least two of the sources are not news articles, but opinion pieces.  Draken Bowser ( talk ) 07:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I believe Victor Carlstrom's could be the largest whistleblower in the financial industrial complex by all time.  In court documents it's reveals he cooperating with prosecutors in the Southern District of New York the most credible and fearful prosecutors on Mother Earth.  The fact this person blew the whistle on something he claims is the largest money laundering scheme in history and also something he provide very credible evidence of at his Instagram and Twitter for his millions of followers, where both accounts has been verified with blue check mark for years since I follow him I know the story well, and it's a huge story and I believe it will grow over time.  It's also clear in the court documents he has strike some deal with the prosecutors in the Southern District and by this article in NewsMax it confirms he are in a witness protection program today and live in America under a new name.  https://www.newsmax.com/gavinwax/banking-reform/2023/04/10/id/1115604/ He also have news coverage under the name Victor X. It's very clear by this case when someone become a whistleblower against the elite and people in power who controls the media and Wikipedia they control for sure they do all in their power to erase someone's name on the internet.  But in this case Victor Carlstrom got news from sources credible and approved by Wikipedia, articles which make this page legit and should not be deleted.  Everyone knows the reason Wikipedia have negative opinions about NewsMax and Townhall is because Wikipedia is ruled by the far left and New York Times would get exact same words if the far right would rule Wikipedia, for all the conspiracy theories New York Times have written and spread over the years.  Facts, the story and the news articles supported by court documents all support Victor Carlstrom's Wikipedia should not be deleted and remain on Wikipedia.  Rionass ( talk ) 03:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Frankly it's very scary how biased and not credible Wikipedia is and this case is exactly why Wikipedia should not be used as a source for information.  To delete Victor Carlstrom's Wikipedia maybe the largest whistleblower by all time in finance.  Would be the same as Joe Biden blow up Donald Trump's plane and Trump dies.  Only right wing media writes about it and left wing/main stream media aka Fake News suppress the story as we see in Russia for example when bad things happened.  Then Wikipedia use the facts no main stream media/fake news reported about Donald Trump plane was blown up and he died and on Wikipedia you can read Donald Trump is still alive flying around in his Trump plane.  I know this example is to stretch it but my point is only because the fake news don't write about it doesn't mean it didn't happen.  That's exactly the scenario we see here why some people definitely in connected to the fake news want to delete Victor Carlstrom's Wikipedia page.  Will be very interesting to see if they succeed or if Wikipedia manage to stand up against the fake news narrative, they desperately try to push in to people's throats.  Rionass ( talk ) 03:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's fine or whatever, but you need to stop with the personal attacks – as if arguing for deletion could only be explained by us being on the deep state payroll or part of a rabid wokeist conspiracy.  Draken Bowser ( talk ) 09:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete.  If your best arguments for keeping are primary sources (court documents) and articles by Newsmax , a notoriously unreliable publication, there is no basis on which to write a neutral article and the topic is not notable.  Sandstein 07:56, 17 May 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete