Talk:Winter (programmer)

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Yunshui in topic Legal name


Contesting PROD

edit

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)Reply

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)Reply

  • 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)Reply
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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
edit

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)Reply

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)Reply
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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
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)Reply
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[2], as contemplated above? Thus, the article can be updated with the appropriate reference. 71.176.10.183 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply