Deletion of Winter (Starbucks)

Comment: 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 , 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  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 . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT||WP:ONEEVENT||WP:BIO)

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: http://www.starbuckseverywhere.net/MediaAppearances.htm There is also a link to various http://www.starbuckseverywhere.net/EgoSurfing.htm 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 ? 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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 ''''''. 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 '''''' 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.Special:Contributions/71.176.10.183|71.176.10.183
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SPIP||WP:NRVE)

Comment: Not notable. fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)