Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Secret Agent Club


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  12:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The Secret Agent Club

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

To quote my removed PROD:"No apparent signs of notability. Rotten Tomatoes lists two reviews, but one (archived) is actually for The Secret Agent (1996 film) and the other I can find no trace of online and wouldn't know if the source is reliable anyway. Found nothing else of value, and I wouldn't even be sure it was keepable if it had those reviews." That PROD was removed without comment, but sources were added so that's fine. The problem is that three of them are just databases (Mubi, FilmDienst, TV Guide), one is WhatCulture which "is considered generally unreliable", and one is Hulk Hogan's own book which does not give notability to a movie he starred in. I can't view the excerpts from that Orpheus Pub review to garner an opinion of it as a source, but even if it's reliable, it's the only one so far, and I didn't find anything else earlier as I said so I still don't see notability here. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 10:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 10:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Karnataka  talk  12:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Filmdienst quotes the Lexikon des internationalen Films, which is very reliable. Even if one takes the nominator's views into consideration, the coverage seems sufficient to attest notability.
 * But fair enough, one can also add this review, at least to make sure it meets the requirements for notability of films. And this, this, this, this, etc.
 * For what it's worth, the film was internationally distributed and various sources exist when looking up with Spanish/Portuguese/French titles...
 * (Note- The assertion that That PROD was removed without comment is not true. I removed the Prod and I did add a comment both in the Old prod template on the talk page "Added sources, expanded, apparently notable" and in my edit summary "++, removed Prod by User:QuietHere", which is short but seems very clear and informs the nominator of the DeproD. Please check and amend your comment if you don't mind.)
 * - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  13:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Saying "removed the PROD" without saying why is removing it without comment. Fair, you did then add a reason to the template on the talk page which I didn't see, and also that part doesn't matter because your reasoning was clear without being stated.
 * As for the sources you've linked, let's see. The Movie Scene is written by one person and makes no mention of editorial oversight so that likely gets struck down as unreliable/non-expert unless Webb is secretly some acclaimed film critic who I've just never heard of. Wealth of Geeks is a listicle and I've seen enough of those rejected to have my doubts, especially when there's only a few sentences on the movie and they're written by someone who appears to only write listicles. Cinema.de has a rating but no prose attached and is otherwise just a database page, not hot on that. Stinker Madness is a blog for someone's podcast which appears to also lacks editorial oversight and would be struck. And Kino.de suggests at the bottom of the page that the review there is one of what could be more, implying that review is a user submission, thus failing USERG. See how the recent Haunted Mansion lists 13 reviews and an average rating of them.
 * In short, I don't think any of those pages are reliable, and my mind has not been changed. Since you say you found more in other languages, please link them here. QuietHere (talk &#124; contributions) 21:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Reply : Saying "removed the PROD" without saying why is removing it without comment. No, I don't think it is the same. And in good faith if you quote it, you should quote my edit summary completely : "++, removed ProD by XXX", which obviously means I expanded the page or added various things to it, which clearly explains why I removed the tag (not to mention the size of the edit and the TP template). I am therefore forced to repeat that your opening assertion is simply not true. If it does not matter and was clear without being stated, why mention it at all? Let's forget it, as you clearly do not wish to amend that erroneous statement.
 * Other reviews:
 * http://www.the-unknown-movies.com/unknownmovies/reviews/rev126.html
 * https://theschlockpit.com/2021/03/12/the-secret-agent-club-1996/ (this is hosted by Wordpress and is technically a blog)
 * Various other lists include the film with a brief assessment (ScreenRant, Complex).
 * There was apparently a review in Time Out at the time of the release but I can't access it and will not try. If anyone has time...
 * I mentioned sources in other languages above "fwiw" to attest international distribution and attest the titles when they differ a lot from the original, but fair enough here's one review in French, for example:
 * https://www.senscritique.com/film/agent_double/critique/264611271
 * I'll let other users judge the quality and number of sources presented here, above and on the page, and will make no further comment in this discussion. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  23:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.senscritique.com/film/agent_double/critique/264611271
 * I'll let other users judge the quality and number of sources presented here, above and on the page, and will make no further comment in this discussion. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  23:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  The review notes: "On a budget that would barely cover one of Arnie' cigars, that other body builder-cum-film star Hulk Hogan essentially remakes True Lies, this time with Jamie Lee Curtis replaced by the streetwise antics of a bunch of kids. ... With a little less overacting from the supporting cast, and a touch more imagination, this could have been lowbrow fun. As it is, it's bland, only occasionally entertaining, nonsense."   The article notes: "The biggest danger the film flirts with is of degenerating into a out-and-out camp farce, which might have generated a bigger audience beyond kids and those who enjoy watching Plan 9 From Outer Space all the way through. Director John Murlowski, a former music video director whose feature credits include Amityville: The New Generation and Automatic, only just avoids going down this road, perhaps to his credit. His evident ability to maintain conviction in this possibly career-wrecking venture suggests that he must have learnt a thing or two in his early days making public service announcements for the Suicide Prevention Center (a detail conveyed in the film's press notes). However, with its ridiculous collection of mugging baddies (foremost offender being the sadly fallen Lesley-Anne Down as the vampish Eve), cheesy action sequences, and bad special effects, The Secret Agent Club is likely only to save the lives of depressives with a taste for borderline kitsch and fanatical Hulk Hogan fans."   The review notes: "Although he has played a campy villain in the ring and in ROCKY III (1982), wrestling star Terry "Hulk" Hogan has a more upstanding role in this low-grade, family action-comedy. ... After a 007-style entrance, Hogan, rather suprisingly, gets written out of most of the plot, leaving a multicultural band of bland children to carry on slapstick action heroics. Special effects and stunts look acceptable granted the low budget, although mistaking the awesome disintegrator handgun for a chintzy toy is an error any observer could make."   The review notes: ""THE SECRET AGENT CLUB": Lethal. When a studio trumpets the fact that a film is a cross between "Home Alone" and "True Lies," you gotta wonder: What brand of glue did the studio execs start sniffing? This time, first impressions are as accurate as the Weekly World News. Yes, "The Secret Agent Club" is junk. But kids need B movies just like their parents. ... Remember how much you liked the original "Batman" series when you were a kid? Your children will experience the same feeling with "Club.""   The article notes: "Hulk Hogan flexes his muscles for another bid for box office glory ... only to finish up flat on his backside. In The Secret Agent Club (PG) the big guy stars in a feeble fourth division version of True Lies. Where Arnie had a budget, sock-it-to-them action and wisecracking script, however, Hulk's has very little at all to commend it. In this bit of froth for the teenies, the former wrestler's cover is that he runs a toy shop. The reality is that he's a super-duper agent whose speciality is saving the world from power- mad baddies like Lesley-Anne Down. And whatever did happen to her career? This certainly won't help it along."  <li> The review notes: "John Murlowski's dumb, noisy, explosive adventure is a sort of juvenile version of Schwarzenegger's True Lies, and Leslie-Anne Down, as the sexy English villainess, delivers her lines with pantomime-like flourishes, suggesting that she has got the measure of the material. Hulk, with his indestructible jaw and weird hairline, is hardly a model of Bondian suaveness and, sadly, spends far too long doing nothing more than lying flat on his back resisting various mind tortures, when he should really be out there in the action." </li> <li> The review notes: "HULK HOGAN as secret agent relying on his young son's help in True Lies slapstick for the tiny-tots set. It went direct to video in the United States, propelled by Jan Hammer's old-fashioned synthesizer score. The script is so full of inane puns it must have arrived at Hogan's house covered in Schwarzenegger's thumbprints. With Lesley-Anne Down" </li> <li>Simon Rose articles:<ol> <li> The review notes: " The Secret Agent Club ... It's utter drivel, but the kids it's aimed at will probably like its Home Alone-style. " </li> <li> The review notes: "Captured by evil arms dealer Lesley-Anne Down, his son and his mates set out to rescue him. It's utter drivel, cheaply and shoddily made. But while adults will find it torture, the single-digit-aged kids it's aimed at will probably relish the Home Alone-style antics." </li> <li> The review notes: "Villains are made to look doubly stupid, coupled with the non-existent thrills of and a total lack of finesse or restraint, 'The Secret Agents Club' is a movie full of half-baked comedy ideas that just do not work - even at juvenile level. It is also sad to see 70's star Lesley-Anne Down reduced to playing a 'vamp' villain in the campy mode of Joan Collins." </li> </ol></li> <li> The review notes: "Coming up slow, but disappearing fast, is kids' movie The Secret Agent Club. the non-awaited big screen return of former wrestler Hulk Hogan, a man who makes Wolf from Gladiators look like a RADA honours graduate. ... On a budget that makes Blakes 7 look extravagant, the only thing in its favour is that Hogan spends most of the film strapped to a table. The difference between that and his acting in other in other more animated scenes is minimal." </li> <li> The review notes: "Home Alone was an excellent example of this. The Secret Agent Club isn't, basically because the bits that make grown-ups giggle aren't in the script. No naughty double-entendre here, no sir. ... Another problem is that there isn't enough action. Indeed, the whole affair has a somewhat drab, cheap, downmarket feel to it. The kids may not notice - parents will." </li> <li> The review notes: "If you've seen the movie True Lies with Arnold Schwarzenegger, then The Secret Agent Club is the same plot but without the thrills. The laser gun looks like something you could pick up at Toys R Us and every expense appears to have been spared presumably to pay Hogan. With a larger budget and a little more thought, The Secret Agent Club could have been an entertaining family film. Instead, it barely comes up to scratch with just a few entertaining moments and a lot of bland nonsense in between." </li> <li> The review notes: "Hulk Hogan briefly becomes charming as his secret agent character returns to his civilian disguise as a nerdy single father. Then he's kidnapped by arms dealers, and spends most of the movie under sedation. His young son gets his friends to help track down and spring his father, dodging bullets and killers while having a jolly good time. Reprehensible in its attitude towards violence while children are present, this also contains blatant racist stereotypes. It's a pity the audience couldn't be as unconscious as Hogan was throughout this travesty." </li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Secret Agent Club to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified above by Cunard such as Empire magazine, Sight & Sound, Daily Record, Sunday Times and others that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.