Deletion of Cook Islands–Czech Republic relations

Comment: Please other editors about the explanation, what is fundamentally different from this article, and for example article Bulgaria–Indonesia relations. (There are basic information about embassies, two banal treaties and little humanitarian aid. Nothing else. No "book or scholarly articles specifically on" the relations of Bulgaria and Indonesia, the "existing references are strictly " according to the arguments used here.) So it looks like the vast majority of articles on bilateral relations. I'd like to figure out how You to judge a notability of bilateral relations articles. So far, unfortunately, it is not clear to me. If somebody will explain fundamental differences between this two articles, I have no problem to change my minds. I have keeping an article no for my authorship, but because I still belief that it is comparable with the others and that is comparably significant. And needed to cover the topic of bilateral relations of the small countries like CI or Niue. Thanks for your comments
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: The article's just a rag-tag collection of vaguely related facts.  There's no reason to have sections on treaties with large number of signatories that both countries happen to have signed, like the Cotonou Agreement, or other issues that are about the relations between the Cook Islands and the European Union rather than the Czech Republic specifically.  Basic facts can be added to Foreign relations of the Cook Islands, or maybe an article on Cook Islands-EU relations, but we don't need a separate article for the Cook Islands' relationship with each country in the world. This is based on previous AfDs for international relations articles for other small countries. Find me a book or scholarly articles specifically on the relations of the Cook Islands and Czech Republic and I'll certainly reconsider, but the existing references are strictly 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ROUTINE)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard (WP:HEY)

Comment: WP:BLUDGEON|attempts to bludgeon those opining for deletion of your |own article are pretty poor form. You need to allow |community consensus to develop and if it develops with a position contrary to yours, then you need to think about whether you can either fix the article to convince people otherwise or make good solid arguments here. ''"You're wrong, I'm right"'' isn't a very convincing argument. I also don't think there's enough here to justify what is basically |synthed-together speculation on what contributions to broad aid programs and accredited embassies might mean
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN||WP:CONSENSUS||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Never mind the sources, which probably only add up to "Cook Islands–Czech relations" with a good deal of |original synthesis; I would say that the topic is inherently non-notable, along the lines of most "case study" articles that have been deleted in the past
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:original synthesis)