Talk:Winter (programmer)

Contesting PROD
I'd originally removed this PROD because it lacked any rationale and because there was just enough to suggest that there might be enough coverage to show lasting notability. While the article is less filled out than I'd otherwise like, I've found enough to show that he is notable. He's gotten coverage years after initially being mentioned and has also been the focus of a documentary.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   12:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Formal Afd requested for this page; notability is in dispute. Article subject is trivial in nature (and also claims to be mononymous without any legal proof of such change). 71.176.55.79 (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've listed it, but you have to realize that the amount of coverage he's received is more than just trivial. I might consider him silly to do all of this and he won't ever be as important a figure as even some of the various authors out there, but that doesn't mean he can't pass notability guidelines for WP:BIO. Being "trivial" in the grand scope of things isn't in itself a reason to delete, but like I said- I've still completed the nom for you.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What a strange world we live in when notability can be conferred on the subject of an article merely by attempting to visit as many Starbucks as possible. The article itself is a construct under WP:SPIP. It's worth noting that although he claims to have also changed his name to the mononym of Winter, there are no independently available references to a legal document affirming this change (unlike Joanie Laurer's legal name change to Chyna), thus failing WP:NRVE as well. Regardless, if the article is kept, it probably is not feasible to list the article under just Winter or Winter_(Starbucks); renaming it to Starbucking or Starbucking_(movie) would suffice in its stead, since the "documentary" and activity for which such notability was asserted does not even have an article of its own. 71.176.10.183 (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing about renaming it to "Starbucking" (either after the action or the documentary) is that the documentary came as a result of his actions. He was known for going to random Starbucks long before someone decided to create a documentary on him. When it comes to the term in general, not many articles have used that term in relation to him. They mention that he's gone to various Starbucks, but it isn't until far later that the term gets used and even then it's not really a prevalent term used. Most of the coverage for him mentions the documentary as a side note and not as the predominant focus. Since he achieved media attention before then, I don't feel that it'd be appropriate to redirect to the documentary title, even though it'd be a nicer looking article name. As far as the legal documents go, it'd be nice if he provided them to some media outlet, but we don't entirely need a legal document in this case. If someone is predominantly known by one name (stage name, given name, etc) and that's what the media uses in relation to them, then that's what we can use as the name of the article, no legal documentation required. It's why Snoop Dogg's article redirects to his stage name, as do the articles for why the lucky stiff and Snooki. We don't need legal documentation, just for that to be the predominant name he's known by. Even back before his name was supposedly legally changed, he was just going by Winter. As far as establishing notability by weird things go, it is silly but if notability is established via coverage then he merits an article. Again, I just don't feel right redirecting this to a documentary that was made after he already achieved notice or to a term that isn't really used that heavily in relation to him. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Legal name
Here's the thing: we don't have pictures of the guy holding up a paper saying that he's legally changed his name, although I'm sure that one of us could probably track him down and get him to post it. In my searches I've seen that he's not that hard to find. However he's reported to multiple media outlets that he's legally changed his name in 2006 and they've used that name for him since then. Even before that point that was the name he went by and the name they used. Until we have proof that he hasn't changed his name, we have to go by what multiple media outlets have specified.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Supposedly Lozano aka Smith got a legal name change in a Texas court (or that's what he's been telling everyone) to the mononym of Winter. Since you contacted him, he can easily post on his website a copy of the court order, or a suitably redacted ID, such as a driver license, passport or social security card with his mononym as the sole identifier, which should pass muster.71.176.10.183 (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It'd also be possible to get the DMV to confirm this if we knew the phone number for one of their main branches. If he doesn't respond then one of us can try that route.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the court order for the name change (if it actually exists) should be available unless it was sealed, since it is a public record in Texas. Can't confirm whether that's the case for a drivers license in that state, though I doubt it, given the concerns about identity theft these days. 71.176.10.183 (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, he was REALLY fast about replying and he sent me a picture of his driver's license and I can confirm that it is just Winter. I've asked if I could show the picture on here via a photobucket account or something along those lines. We don't need it posted on the website, just a quick link to show that the name change happened.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a repository for such documentation that can be used for future (if not permanent) reference? There shouldn't be an issue if the subject also posts it in the section of his website for media reference, given that it is there that he also implores the media to use his assumed name. 71.176.10.183 (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's an image of the DL: I've been given permission to put the photo in my photobucket account so it can be shown here, but if all else fails I guess I can leave it uploaded. I've got like 3-4 photobucket accounts, most of which I rarely use anymore.Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   18:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The DL looks, on its face, to be a valid indicator that the subject is now legally monomymous. Since you are in contact with Winter, perhaps you could suggest that he ADD the photo to his own website, as contemplated above? Thus, the article can be updated with the appropriate reference. 71.176.10.183 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  10:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Winter (Starbucks)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm completing this nomination for an anonymous IP, which is also the same that PRODed the article in the first place. Their justification for the PROD was that he lacked notability per WP:GNG. I removed the PROD because at the time I saw enough potential notability to justify removing the PROD. After some searching, I found enough to where I personally believe the article should be kept. However to be fair, I'm completing this so there can be a proper discussion. Here is the argument on the talk page: "Formal Afd requested for this page; notability is in dispute. Article subject is trivial in nature (and also claims to be mononymous without any legal proof of such change)." Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. After all is said and done with my listing this for an IP, I believe that the guy in question passes notability guidelines. Yes, the guy's bizarre drive to visit every Starbucks in the world could initially have been seen to be WP:ONEEVENT, but the media has gone back about 5-7 years after the initial reporting in 2004 to follow up on his status in 2009, with a Turkish paper running an interview with him in 2011. If that's not enough, the guy was also the focus of the documentary "Starbucked", which has received a few reviews. If not for the documentary I'd have argued for WP:ONEEVENT status as well, but all in all the guy and his documentary have received just enough coverage in multiple reliable sources to where I believe he passes WP:BIO. Being the focus of a documentary that has received multiple reviews and gaining coverage in RS is not a trivial thing. Silly and ridiculous? Yep. But then something can be silly and ridiculous and still pass notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   16:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah- also wanted to add that in one of the links on the article he states that he has legally changed his name to "Winter". Even if he hasn't and he's just going under the moniker of "Winter", enough articles have reported on him using only the name "Winter" that it's feasible to list the article just under that name. I also want to note that since completing this AfD nom, I've also found where he was mentioned in a Zondervan book as well as a BlogCritics review Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   17:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Clearly notable, as shown by sources. "I don't like" the idea of drinking that much coffee, or spending one's life doing such a silly thing, but that's that. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (Weak) Keep. He's notable for a single phenomenon but has received substantial, enduring mentions by reliable sources, including a noted movie. Majoreditor (talk) 20:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete (or Rename if kept): What a strange world we live in when notability can be conferred on the subject of an article merely by attempting to visit as many Starbucks as possible. The article itself is a construct under WP:SPIP. It's worth noting that although he claims to have also changed his name to the mononym of Winter, there are no independently available references to a legal document affirming this change (unlike Joanie Laurer's legal name change to Chyna), thus failing WP:NRVE as well. Regardless, if the article is kept, it is not feasible to list the article under just Winter or Winter_(Starbucks) as suggested; either an article called Starbucking or Starbucking_(movie) would suffice in its stead, since the "documentary" and activity for which such notability was asserted does not even have an article of its own.71.176.10.183 (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I also wondered if the article should be about the movie. If the sources mainly talk about the person as the subject of the movie, probably so. If they talk about him without the movie then he's the one that's notable.  I don't think his name has anything to do with the question.  If he was mainly known for his name I would not vote to keep, even if it was legally changed. BigJim707 (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, the earlier articles (2004-2006) all focus on him and his Starbuck quest rather than on his name or on the documentary, which didn't really begin filming until 2006. From 2006 on there are a few sources that focus on the documentary, but almost all of them are predominantly centered around him. He gained media attention long before the documentary and even after that the documentary is usually not the main focus of the interviews or articles. It's mentioned, but it's not the bigger thrust of the articles. I did debate renaming it after the movie since it'd make for a better looking title, but most of the coverage centers on the Starbucks thing rather than on the documentary. It's kind of one of those things that isn't entirely a good fit either way. He's gotten attention for "Starbucking", but then other than the documentary name I haven't seen that term used a whole lot in the non-documentary focused articles. But in any case, he did get a substantial amount of coverage. I just didn't want to bog down the article with any more sources than I had on there already. In the end I'm just not comfortable renaming the article for a documentary that while known and gives his notability that extra push to make me fight for the article, isn't really what he's known for. He was in the media before then. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   03:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to admins: The above IP is the same one that requested the AfD. I'm not sure whether I should strike the "delete" part or not in these circumstances.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And you're the one who completed it for me. Thank you. You then voted. And so did I. Not sure what the problem is, but thanks for being a good wikipedian and helping out. 71.176.10.183 (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference is that as the nominator, your delete vote is already counted into the nomination. Since I only completed the nomination, I could still do a "vote" in the bottom. I could've put it all in the nomination, but that wouldn't have been fair. :) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources say he's notable, like it or not. BigJim707 (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete The notability guidelines are intended to serve as a guideline to establish whether or not an article about a subject merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. They're not a web coverage counter. This to me is trivial and pointless, and can easily be construed as failing WP:BLP1E. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If the coverage was all lumped together in 2004 when people first started reporting on him, I'd agree that it might be a WP:ONEEVENT type of scenario. However I've found a 2011 news report about him that is fairly in-depth. There's also that documentary, which received some coverage as well. Then on top of all of that, he's been mentioned in a 2008 book. Not in a positive manner, but he's still given a fairly lengthy mention. Given that people are still reporting on him seven years later, it's hard to say that WP:ONEEVENT really applies in this situation. Most times that policy applies to people who receive a lot of coverage in a period of a few months to maybe a year or two, then only receives only a brief mention or so after that. Again, if not for the documentary then I might have been swayed, but it's hard to say that someone isn't notable when they've gotten coverage over a seven year period of time and have had a documentary based around them. I think that the documentary pushes them just above the rank of "low profile". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - 14 reliable citations proving he's a notable person? Kind of obvious of a keep, sure he seems like an unusually famous person, but his article is still well written, well sourced, and proves notability. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 04:50, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable. fails WP:BLP1E--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * However, does WP:BLP1E really apply when that person has received coverage over a long period of time and has been the focus of a documentary? It's true that he's only received coverage for visiting multiple Starbucks, but he's received global coverage in RS over a period of 7 years. He's been the focus of a documentary. People are still talking about him. He gets coverage each year. Granted it's not akin to how much coverage that say, Snooki gets in a year, but he's had a handful of news sources reporting on him each year since he first got notice in 2004. I honestly think that the idea of "one event" is being a bit misused in this circumstance. People can get well known for one event, yet still pass notability guidelines. If someone can prove that the term "starbucking" is commonly used in relation to him then I wouldn't entirely mind moving it to that name, but the thing is... that term wasn't really used for him until 2007, 3 years after he was first reported on. Even now people don't really use that term in relation to him unless it's to briefly bring up the documentary. It just seems more than a little broken to say that a guy that has been reported in hundreds of news articles for his obsession over a period of 7+ years and been the focus of a documentary should be deleted for it being "one event". I know if we had a cute little term to label his obsession under then we'd probably had a lot fewer "deletes", but the fact of the matter is that we don't. We have a documentary that came about because he had been so reported on so much, but it's not the defining feature of him. He has a term that has been used, but is used in less than a third of the articles about him. (A GNews search brought up about 40-45 articles specifically using that term.) The only thing we can really use is the name he's reported most under, which is the moniker he's claimed to have had the courts approve as his legal name. It just seems wrong to redirect to a term that isn't in prevalent use or to a documentary that is more of a side-feature than anything else. Would it make for a nicer looking name or an easier search term? Yep. But is it necessarily correct to do so? I don't honestly believe that it'd be in the best interests to redirect to a term just because it looks nicer or because it makes people happier to redirect to a term rather than to a person's moniker.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I also wanted to address the name issue. The guy has reported to multiple news outlets since 2006 that he's legally changed his name to Winter. Even in the early reporting on him, he's gone under the moniker of "Winter"- he just hadn't legally changed his name just yet. I've emailed him to request that he provide visual proof, but considering that there have been multiple news outlets reporting this I'm not sure how much more we need. I'd also like to state that his website has links to all of the news stations, radio stations, and other news outlets that have reported on him: There is also a link to various web coverage, but most of those don't seem to be usable. I guess I just have to restate the question: at what point does being notable for one event pass WP:GNG? If a person has received somewhat regular coverage since 2004 in various sources, at what point does that pass notability guidelines? This is one of those instances where I think that the "one person one event" thing is being used a bit too broadly and I'm worried that saying "only one event so this person isn't notable unless they're one event along the lines of Lee Harvey Oswald" is being far too limiting. Sometimes a person is known for one event that is OK, maybe not something major, but is still reported on enough to where it's more than just a passing news fancy. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Supposedly Lozano aka Smith got a legal name change in a Texas court (or that's what he's been telling everyone) to the mononym of Winter. Since you contacted him, he can easily post on his website a copy of the court order, or a suitably redacted ID, such as a driver license, passport or social security card with his mononym as the sole identifier, which should pass muster. 71.176.10.183 (talk) 07:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gotten a really quick reply so as soon as I get a confirmation that I can upload the picture to a photobucket account or otherwise show the image, I'll provide a link to his drivers license that shows that he got the name change.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a repository for such documentation that can be used for future (if not permanent) reference? There shouldn't be an issue if the subject also posts it in the section of his website for media reference, given that it is there that he also implores the media to use his assumed name. 71.176.10.183 (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe the commons area? I'm a little weirded out by the idea of posting someone's license on there though, even with the sensitive data blanked out. I'm sort of paranoid when it comes to personal data on the web.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's an image of the DL: I've been given permission to put the photo in my photobucket account so it can be shown here, but if all else fails I guess I can leave it uploaded. I've got like 3-4 photobucket accounts, most of which I rarely use anymore.Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   18:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The DL looks, on its face, to be a valid indicator that the subject is now legally monomymous. Since you are in contact with Winter, perhaps you could suggest that he ADD the photo to his own website, as contemplated above? Thus, the article can be updated with the appropriate reference. 71.176.10.183 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Easily meets the GNG. Life is stranger than fiction...  Th e S te ve   09:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - We do not determine directly if something is notable. In particular, we don't decide if visiting a lot of Starbucks is something worthy of note.  Instead, we turn to coverage in reliable sources to make that determination for us.  There is certainly lots of coverage, so the question is whether this is a case of it being just a one event phenomenon.  If the coverage wad just a blip at the start with no sustained interest, I would support deletion on the grounds of it being one event.  However, the coverage has been sustained over a period of years which for me lists it past the notability bar.  -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.