Deletion of Denmark – New Zealand relations (2nd nomination)

Comment: their relations have sown significant history, bilateral agreements, bilateral visits (alhough no state visits), and lots of |references, as may be seen from the article.  I also note for the record that several of my citations about their sports rivalries were erased from the article in the past six months
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: because the article revolves around trivia to create a fictitious topic rather than a topic anyone outside Wikipedia has bothered to notice exists. Just look how the authors strain to make this seem notable: "the New Zealand government describes the relations as 'good'". Think about that: ''what else'' might one expect from two small, squishy, socialist-lite states 11,155 miles apart? A few handshakes, some scraps of paper signed (ah, those double taxation avoidance agreements!), and ... that's about it. (Speaking of that agreement: whoever added it has also apparently failed to read , taking a primary-source document and declaring it to validate a claim about a relationship. But let's not let those pesky policies get in the way, right?) Compare this make-believe pairing with actual ones, like http://books.google.com/books?id=ggWLz3iQU4gC Denmark-China or http://books.google.com/books?id=PoBjCMa625wC New Zealand and various Southeast Asian nations, and the difference is striking
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PSTS)