Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognac diplomacy


 * 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 delete. None of the keep !voters disputed the analysis that the reliable sources provided do not actually contain the subject.  So Why  10:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Cognac diplomacy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See Foreign relations of Azerbaijan/ESISC report. ESISC just a Baku's lobbyest, the report just a propaganda. There is no any response in the media, only the articles of ESISC itself. Divot (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 27.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 22:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable neologism; the article is more about the report the term is used in than the term itself. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is very biassed and not neutral point of view, and seems to use its ostensible topic as a coatrack for attacks on various organisations, although it's not entirely clear what its precise aim is (although the nomination itself is equally propagandist and just as out of place on Wikipedia). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep - Colapeninsula The article is mainly based on report developed by an independent international think tank and portrays the findings of the report based on the investigation carried out and comprehensively described not only within the report itself, but also in articles in numerous foreign media. The aim - as it goes with each article in Wikipedia and the general mission of any encyclopedia, is to bring more clarity to the term cognac diplomacy which is being frequently used in connection to Armenia’s informal diplomacy, which was also acknowledged by Armenians themselves. Respective article is provided. Vugar Z (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep: First of all concerns expressed in the comments did not exist before the user Divot made the edits. He changed the article entirely and provided biased view and only after this proposed it for deleting. The original version of the article reflected numerous links of news coverage regarding the topic moreover the article didn’t only base on ESISC report. There is not any view of author in the article and every paragraph is noted with source and was written in neutral language. Therefore I’m undoing all changes made by Devot. Every editor is more than welcome to contribute to the article based on Wikipedia rules but not vandalizing the page as Divot did. @Divot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coneyislandqueentobe (talk • contribs) 12:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "The term is mentioned periodically in the bribery case of Venice Commission by the Armenians and Nazarbayev's former Press Secretary Ajdosa Sarymova."  - can you find any word about  Venice Commission or Ajdosa Sarymova in this link ? Please cite it. Divot (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This confusion derives from the wording which maybe needs more clarification but it’s cited information. This thought is based on allegations of bribing of Venice Commission by Armenian officials. It was stated by Armenian MP Levon Zurabyan where he promised to submit facts and was widely covered in Armenian media also with reaction of government which initiated investigations on the case.  Respective links to media articles are added.

Венецианская комиссия благословила…

Заявлением о подкупе Венецианской комиссии займется полиция Армении

Полиция Армении начала следствие по заявлению о подкупе членов Венецианской комиссии --Coneyislandqueentobe (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "This confusion derives from the wording" - your wording, Coneyislandqueentobe, your misinformative wording
 * "allegations of bribing of Venice Commission by Armenian officials" - just one MP (not Armenian official) promised to submit facts, without used term "Cognac diplomacy", by the way. And what? Did he submit that facts? Any document? Any court's decision? Nothing. Absolute zero. Don't put fake links and incorrect information in the article. Divot (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It is hard to understand what you say as your intervention is unclear. And the chairman of the Constitutional Court of Armenia is Armenian. MP is also an Armenian official. Please practise English or I can recommend a tutor. Sona Sh (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "MP is also an Armenian official" - No. "К примеру, в ч. 3 ст. 308 УК Армении должностными лицами признаются лица, постоянно, временно или по особому полномочию осуществляющие функции представителя власти либо организационно-распорядительные, административно-хозяйственные функции в государственных органах, органах местного самоуправления, их организациях, а также в Вооруженных силах Республики Армения, других войсках и воинских объединениях Республики Армения." (Бриллиантов А.В., Четвертакова Е.Ю. "Должностное лицо в уголовном законодательстве России и зарубежных стран". 2015, ISBN 5392172660, 9785392172665). Nothing about MP.
 * "chairman of the Constitutional Court of Armenia..." And what he said about "Cognac diplomacy"? Please cite it. Not common words, but a clear quote. Divot (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Keep This article is developed in line to Wikipedia rules with respect to neutrality. ESISC is an international think tank established in Brussels. There are articles on media in Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia. These links existed in the text before edited by Divot. Divot’s thoughts are contradictory as he names the organization to be Baku lobbyist at the same time he amends the article so that it reflects pro-Armenian position as criticizing Azerbaijan. Another contradiction is that why there are numerous vandalism attempts and changes made to the article if the purpose is to have the article deleted. Kingedik (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's rename article to "ESISC", if it is an international think tank established in Brussels, no problem. Just like in Russian and French  Wikipedia.
 * But where does "cognac diplomacy" come from? Not a single major media has written about this report. Of course, they do not comment on stupid conspiracy theories. Divot (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep: please note that the term of cognac diplomacy was existing before the report  and below is several articles on media in Moldova and Armenia itself where this term is noted. In Article in Armenia Armenian author notes that cognac is considered as the element of national diplomacy. See Ashot Martirosyan's interview Sona Sh (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Ashot Martirosyan's intervie" - it's a fake. Ashot Martirosyan said about cultural diplomacy, not abut lobbing. Divot (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not fake. Martirosyan calls it the national diplomacy but not the cultural one and admits that Armenians have solved at least one problem with a bottle of cognac so far. Sona Sh (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The correct mean is "Armenian cognac is a national endow, I would even call it national diplomacy. It's no secret that every Armenian for once in his live have solved a problem with a bottle of Armenian cognac". It's just a joke, irony, about Armenians (really every Armenian have solved a problem with a bottle of Armenian cognac? Including babyes?), not about lobbying or diplomacy . So, it's fake link, like all other Coneyislandqueentobe's links. If you have problems understanding Russian text and irony, I can advise a good interpreter. Divot (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your exact translation and advice. My Russian is good. How can you prove that it is just a joke? Sona Sh (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, no. The correct question is "How can you prove that it is about Armenian lobbing?" So? Divot (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Coneyislandqueentobe links about "Cognac diplomacy" is full of fakes. F.e. "UK journalists managed to catch on to bribe Mark Pritchard, a member of the British parliament from Conservative Party, took who agreed to work as a consultant for the Armenian-Lebanese group SOUFAN". In the source we can see only "The parliamentarian who sits on the most APPGs is Mark Pritchard, the Tory MP for the Wrekin, a member of 41 including the country groups for Armenia, Bosnia and Bulgaria. He has also declared an interest as an consultant on the strategic security group Soufan, for which he is paid £2,074 a month.". Divot (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep:  I hold the view that, the page should be assessed in its original version, before the edits were made by those who proposed the page for deletion. Simply by referring to Wikipedia rules, one can reaffirm that the page is not eligible for any of the reasons for deletion: Article does not violate any copyright, does not amount to vandalism, is not placed for advertising based on irrelevant encyclopedic content, provides a number of reliable sources. Very importantly, the article meets the requirements of notability guidelines. A quick reminder that, according to these guidelines, “Article content does not determine notability. Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article”. And I’m quoting the guidelines again:“If the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability”.Evidence of notability of this article comprises recognized publications, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources. Last but not least, I would like to remind that, prior to nominating a page for deletion alternatives to deletion - like improving the page should be considered. Wikipedia can be made a better resource of knowledge if users contribute by improving the articles, rather than trying to delete everything that contradicts their views or opinions.Gopalo (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like a neologism. Fails GNG. Viewpoints of supporters not convincing me this can be improved to the point of keeping. South Nashua (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2017

Although the edits I have made last time, are based on real information and real sources user Divot made vandalism by deleting them and violated Wikipedia rules. Therefore, I stop editing the article and call administrator to review the previous version of the article after which Divot made last changes and to make the decision basing on it. Sona Sh (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism."South Nashua (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "I have made last time, are based on real information and real sources" - it's not a true, you deleted all criticism from the article and put not relevant sources. Divot (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  05:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The article «Коньячная дипломатия» (Cognac diplomacy) was deleted from russian Wiki as not notable subject -. Divot (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment there are multiple editors with agendas here. It appears this term was created to refer to Armenian corruption, in response to the term Caviar diplomacy (Foreign_relations_of_Azerbaijan) being used for Azeri corruption. I note discretionary sanctions are in effect.  I might support a redirect to Corruption in Armenia but want to see an English-language source that uses the term. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The original version of the article that actually discusses the topic is this one - . Divot (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the link to English language article in which term of cognac diplomacy was used.  Even though the topic doesn’t entirely  cover the cognac diplomacy but still it uses the term in a clear manner referring to Armenians, specifically  please note  it’s written by Armenian author and originally published in Russian in magazine “New Time” (Novoye Vremya) which also might be a response to the user My Very Best Wishes who concerned on expression not being used in Russian. If the expression was not perceived in this form in Russian the author would not use it in the article. Sona Sh (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This Article is just translation from russian and said only "But the case with Armenian cognac which Armenian Ambassador to the UN Karine Khazinyan presented to her seems to be too artificial and is spread by the pro-ANC media with some subtext. According to the media Armenian diplomat left the cognac in the box and Baroness noted it then". Sorry, but you dont understand this text. Divot (talk) 10:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The link was added regarding to Power enwiki's comment to show that this term "cognac diplomacy" is not a neologism and has been used before as Power enwiki wanted to see an English language source where the term was used. Sona Sh (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)\
 * Your link doesn't prove that this is not a neologism. Moreover, it says that this is a fake, an invention. Divot (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. This page is basically a hoax. It tells: "it is especially widely perceived and used expression in Armenia, Russia,..." No, there is no such expression in Russian. I never heard it. More important, none of Russian language sources currently on the page uses wording "cognac diplomacy". English language sources? Nothing really. My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The main source about "Cognac diplomacy in the Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe" - European Centre for Strategic Intelligence (ESISC) - а lobbying organization that a long time provides the services of fake "analytic reports" and "fake election observation". At the same time they naming itself as a "think tank" . You can read about ESISC in Russian Wiki - . In short, scammers. Divot (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The European Stability Initiative prepared Caviar Diplomacy report. It names itself as thinktank according to information on official webpage. Here is excerpt from its page "Europe's think tank for South East Europe and enlargement - films and reports on the Balkans, Turkey, Central Europe and the South Caucasus." This report had been cited/referred as a source in Wikipedia articles, acted as base for creation of caviar diplomacy page in Wikipedia. The same is with ESISC thinktank, here is excerpt from official webpage "-ESISC acts as a think tank; numerous members of the team engage regularly with the media, participate in university research, and publish reference works and scientific articles" so the status of both organizations is the same and the same approach should be applied while deciding a text derived from their activities and reports. Why do we refer to a thinktank and keep the text in one case and delete in another. Kingedik (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "so the status of both organizations is the same" - realy? About European Stability Initiative report we have a lot of first-class media - EU Observer, Politiken Danmark , DK Danmark , Radio Sarajevo , BBC , Der Tagesspiegel , Africa Intelligence , Neue Zürcher Zeitung , The Guardian etc. About ESISC report we have no one. Once more, no one major media.
 * But about ESISC report we have commentaries "The report is written in the worst traditions of authoritarian propaganda, makes absurd claims, and is clearly aimed at deflecting the wave of criticism against cover-up of unethical lobbying and corruption in PACE and demands for change in the Assembly" and ""ESISC report is full of lies"
 * After European Stability Initiative report we have "Europe's top human rights watchdog, the Council of Europe, has launched an investigation into alleged corruption at the council involving Azerbaijan"
 * And what we have after ESISC report? Nothing. Once more, nothing.
 * "so the status of both organizations is the same" - very funny. Divot (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. ESISC not only a thinktank, but a "In 2005, ESISC developed a lobbying branch able of carrying out complex lobbying operations at the level of European institutions, national authorities of several countries, and international organizations such as the UN" too. . Divot (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep There are alternative articles on Wikipedia. For example, Category:Types of diplomacy. --► Cekli 829  07:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * None of English language sources at the bottom of this page mentioned "Cognac diplomacy". There is no such thing. A couple of sources tells about "Caviar diplomacy". Yes, maybe that deserves a page, but this is not subject under discussion here. My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2017 (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.