Talk:Bore Lee

Notability
Meets WP:GNG, which is easily verifiable by a Google search. Take for example, which returns 34 hits. Much more hits are returned by - over 500, apparently - and this quote from the same site is also significant:
 * Bore Lee je danas zvijezda. U novinama se piše o njegovim filmovima, zadnje njegovo ostvarenje 'Bore Lee: U kandžama velegrada' ocijenjeno je izrazito pozitivno (Brešanovi razvikani Berlinski 'Svjedoci' u jednom su ozbiljnom tekstu čak proglašeni drugim najboljim hrvatskim filmom prošle godine, odmah iza Bore (!)), profesionalni redatelji se poprilično glasno bune, u jednom časopisu se dijele Borini plakati, sam Bore dijeli autograme i prima čestitke, na projekcijama filma klubovi su prepuni, a prva naklada DVD izdanja njegovog filma navodno je već rasprodana.

His films are another matter - claiming notability for any one of them would be a stretch (U kandžama velegrada is a possible exception), and they should probably all be simply redirected to his biography. GregorB (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced. While it is true that Bore and his films have received some media coverage, almost all of the articles written about him and his films have an ironic feel to them. They usually treat him as nothing more than a curiosity, and his work has often been called "trash" even by his fans. Media outlets which were most vocal about him and his work were Filmski.net and the defunct monthly Nomad, and it would be safe to say that heir support for Bore was an expression of revolt against the mainstream film production in Croatia (This article considers the facts that Nomad had published a poster of Bore and that his latest film had been seen by 3,000 people as evidence of his impact on the local film industry - a bit of a stretch to say the least.) His films were never entered in any of the Pula Film Festivals, which are traditionally an overview of everything that has been produced in the country in the preceding year, his films never had a theatrical run (except from being occasionally shown at camp film festivals and select artsy cinemas). Yes, he has been dealt with directly in reliable sources and that's how we know that he is an unemployed textile worker from Sinj who is obsessed with martial arts and makes micro-budget amateur campy films. I have clicked on a number of Google hits provided by GregorB and I have yet to see an actual review of any of his films. Most of the Vjesnik hits came up because some of the screenings were announced in the Going Out sections, or give him a passing mention as a synonym for total trash. Filmski.net articles on the other hand are fascinated with the idea of an anonymous guy making films and all the hits are either announcements that he has done yet another campy film or that his films will be screened at some camp film festival or some such. In other words, he is treated as a marginal cultural phenomenon - not a filmmaker in his own right. I just don't think this merits an encyclopedia article. '' Timbouctou 18:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We're speaking about Bore Lee, but what you have just said could apply to Ed Wood (well, almost). The point of WP:GNG is simply that significant coverage is conditio sine qua non for writing an encyclopedic article about anything, and it does not involve a value judgment. The fact that, among other things, we know he is a textile worker is a case in point. Granted, a better article (in particular: a better-referenced article, as duly noted by Joy) would illustrate this idea in a much more convincing way. Or, to put it simply: I think that, if I wanted (and I'm not really sure I do, to be honest), I could write a B-class article about him, 100% relying on multiple WP:RS. This is barely (if at all) possible to do about a NN person. GregorB (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An Academy Award winning biographical film was made about Ed Wood which probably contributed towards his notability. Yes, we both know that significant coverage is conditio sine qua non per WP:GNG, but we also know that it is not reason alone to merit an article. The case of Bore is comparable to Saša Lozar or Davor Gobac or Nika Turković (deleted after 2 AfDs) or Mate Peroš (also deleted). I seriously doubt that you could write a B-class article about Bore, but I'd sure be ecstatic if you could prove me otherwise. The man's clam to fame are his films, most of which will have serious trouble surviving PRODs, just like most of Ed Wood's are considered non-notable. Apart from a couple of local magazines, one of which is defunct and has no online archive, and neither of which are considered notable in their own right to have their own Wikipedia articles, nobody ever gave him much attention in the national media. Therefore I consider Filmski.net's clam that "Bore Lee is a star" rather dubious. Nothing he ever did was ever reviewed by a professional critic in any mainstream media and until you prove otherwise (and I suppose you will have to if you think this is B-class material) we have no reason to believe that he is notable per se. Keep in mind that Ed Wood satisfies WP:ARTIST (The person has created a body of work that has been the subject of a feature-length film) while Bore does not, and he also fails WP:ANYBIO. If Bore was a poet with a self-published book of poetry which was largely ignored by the public we wouldn't be having this discussion. If he was a musician with a demo recording but without a recording contract, we wouldn't be having it either. How is this any different? '' Timbouctou  21:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just when I thought I'd be forced to put my money where my mouth is by doing a B-class article on Bore Lee (aw, man!) I found this. I believe that's the "serious article" the above quote was referring to. Indeed, Dragan Jurak, a film critic who also writes (or wrote?) for Jutarnji list. Says Bore Lee is the #1 star of Croatian film in 2003. It is useless to argue how and why - that, together with other texts, is enough critical attention to pass the notability threshold, even WP:ARTIST, as argued by Joy. GregorB (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The whole article confirms what I had said earlier as Jurak (writing for Feral Tribune, a satirical weekly) calls Lee the #1 star ironically. Notice that, after spending most of the article talking about Lee and describing his performance at Močvara, he poses the question "But seriously, when we summarize the above-average year of 2003, is Bore Lee really the biggest star of Croatian film?" - indicating that what he said earlier was just parody - and proceeds to say "However, when Lee stopped wielding his nunchucks [in front of the audience at Močvara], a small correction of the assessment of 2003 in film might be in order. If Boris Ivković (a.k.a. Lee) is not the biggest star of Croatian film in 2003 after all, Mario Kovač might be. A notable theatre director,... ...he seems just as crazy as his protege Bore Lee, but also shows that he has a talent for non-trashy genre parody." You're clutching at straws here. As far as WP:ARTIST is concerned, note that it demands "a body of work that has been subject of multiple reviews" - and this article is not a review of his work at all. Because after reading Jurak's article, what did the reader learn about the film U kandžama velegrada apart from that it is described as a "kung fu romance / social-religious drama"? Jurak goes on to describe the entire Lee's body of work as "amateur, underground, trash film" but adds that Kovač and two others who directed U kandžama velegrada have "added parody to the mix" and then compares this phenomenon to Malnar's Nightmare Stage, because it too has developed a method of turning anonymous people into celebrities. If anything, Jurak confirms Lee's non-notability and explains how that is the very reason why he considers him to be tied for #1 person in 2003. The context of the article shouldn't be ignored here. As for "other texts" I've taken the trouble to go through a number of Vjesnik.hr hits and virtually each one is a passing mention, always in reference to the overall surge in popularity of amateur trash film, and never dealing with any of his films or him directly. '' Timbouctou 23:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I was mentioned in positive context, I do feel I have to point out that you are still missing the second review :) But then I spent a bit of time googling, and found this review of his work in Nacional myself. There's also being included in Dani crnogorske kulture 2010. as well as being a presenter at Zlatna Koogla, and having a book published (by a minor publisher, but one nonetheless), and working with Rambo Amadeus and others, which means those people thought he was at least somewhat notable. It does seem to add up to personal notability by en:wiki standards. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Without arguing one way or the other about Jurak's tone and intention, here's a review, not exactly a glowing one. Here are two articles that give him more than a passing mention: Bore Lee apsolutni kralj trash festivala and Tri projekcije za jednu večer!. GregorB (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I now noticed the Vjesnik link. The first hit,, classifies as significant coverage. So it adds up definitely. It may be trash, but it does sound like sufficiently notable trash :) Although, I would have no problem abstaining in an AfD discussion - let's see what non-Croatian English-speaking population thinks. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Nacional review calls his film "truly horrible" without exactly explaining why. It doesn't look like a review that whoever wrote the notability guidelines had in mind, but I'm willing to let it slide and accept it as such. Being included in the "Dani crnogorske kulture 2010" is very marginal since it was an event for which no pre-selection was required and the film qualified merely for being shot in Montenegro. This does not contribute to his notability one bit. Presenting an award at Zlatna Koogla might be relevant if the award was notable itself, which I'm not sure about, but agan, let's say it was. His poem collection was inaugurated at Booksa, but the event was so notable that Vjesnik didn't even bother to write an article about the event but only published a picture of him with a short caption (I found the link to that when I Googled Bore earlier, I can't find it now). If some review of the book could be found it would go some way towards contributing to notability - the mere fact he published what seems like a pamphlet probably isn't enough, but again, I'm willing to bend the rules a bit. As for "working with Rambo Amadeus" bit, I'm not sure if the link provided mentions Rambo as the "film's composer" because his songs were used in the film, or because he composed them for the film - the former would mean nothing but the latter would mean something. An interview with Rambo in which he mentions working with Bore would be much better to give this argument more weight. I tried looking it up on imdb to see what the credits say, but "Zlatne čaklje" is not even listed there. All in all, the man is barely notable by even the most generous of standards. When I prodded the article I did not think that it would be met with such resistance. I don't feel like taking it to AfD and going through this discussion again, nor do I think that the existence of this article hurts Wikipedia in any way. However, unless the article is improved it is obvious that it will end up at AfD sooner or later. The three of us have edited about a million articles combined and we all know it. And if we all know it, it is our duty as editors to either expedite its deletion or improve it to prevent it from happening. I seriously doubt that this article could be improved beyond start-class, and even for that it would take some pretty creative sourcing. With all that said, I'm dropping the case in the hope that the discussion will result in some actual improvements to the article. '' Timbouctou 00:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do think that the best way to prod it a bit is to start an AfD discussion. It doesn't have to rehash the entire argument, just the gist of it, and those interested can see here. Please do start it, otherwise I will. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It might be argued that WP:ARTIST is met as The person has created [...] a significant or well-known [...] collective body of work, that has been the subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Some proper citations proving that would be nice, though - two film reviews would suffice. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Filmski.net published a ton of articles mentioning Bore Lee - but it is very debatable whether they deal with his body of work at all. Again, I have yet to see a single professional review of any of his films. '' Timbouctou 18:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)