Deletion of Mongolia–Norway relations

Comment: The article has |reliable sources, and while that's necessary for an article, it's not sufficient. Our |notability requirements are quite clear that if we are to have a stand alone article on a topic, then some of those sources must also be independent of the subject, and they must "address the subject directly in detail." In its http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongolia–Norway_relations&oldid=364930252 current state this article cites no such sources, and I can't find any in my own searches.  The majority of sources are webpages from the various  Norwegian government agencies--these are not "independent of the subject." The Norwegian Lutheran Mission sourcehttp://www.nlm.no/index.php?artcat=8&artid=1010 isn't about, even tangentially, relations between Norway and Mongolia, it just describes NLM's activities in Mongolia. The UNDP source is no better: In it's 11 pages, the only mention of Norway is "GEF, UNDP Mongolia and the Government of Norway, in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture, promote the commercialization of super-insulating technologies in the housing sector. Together they are providing technical and financial support in building straw bail and other energy efficient houses and refurbishing existing buildings with high insulating materials." That's it. Hardly direct, detailed coverage, and it's actually coverage of UNDP-Norway relations, not coverage of government to government relations. All the other sources are from Montsame News Agency. Setting aside this issue of this source's independence (it's a government news agency), the real problem I have is that none of the cited articles actually cover Norway-Mongolia relations "directly in detail." http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=BBAB&d_place=BBAB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=1242117008D62178&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM This one is only 80 words long--it's not detailed coverage of anything, and the topic it addresses is a specific event--the Norwegian crown prince's upcoming to visit Mongolia--not N-M relations. Ditto for http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=BBAB&d_place=BBAB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F97A6CEA87EC542&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM this one (90 words) and http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=BBAB&d_place=BBAB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F97A6C72137B992&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM this one (79 words). That leaves only http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-188414616/mongolian-president-asks-crown.html this source which, at 543 words, is indeed meatier. But  requires "source'''''s'''''", i.e. more than one source, and whether this one actually discusses N-M relations "directly, in detail" is doubtful. The primary topic of the article is not the countries' relations but rather a specific meeting between two leaders. Maybe somewhere in those 500+ words, the article steps back and puts the meeting in the context of the countries' relations, but I don't have access to the article so I don't know. But I doubt there's much room in a 500 word article for a digression that addresses the topic "directly in detail." And even if it does, it's just one source; GNG requires multiple
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:GNG)