Deletion of Mali–Russia relations

Comment: Per my usual argument:  is the ''only'' applicable guideline for determining keep/delete, and it requires that for a topic to have a stand-alone article there must significant coverage (direct, detailed coverage in ideally multiple sources) in independent, secondary sources. I'm not seeing that here, so  are not met, so the article should be deleted or merged. The article cites Russian and Malian gov't sources, but those are not independent and thus do not establish notability. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/575705102.html?dids=575705102:575705102&FMT=CITE&FMTS=CITE:AI&date=Mar+21%2C+1961&author=&pub=Chicago+Daily+Tribune&desc=Russia+Signs+Pact+to+Sell+Planes+to+Mali&pqatl=google This and http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/575711032.html?dids=575711032:575711032&FMT=CITE&FMTS=CITE:AI&date=Mar+19%2C+1961&author=&pub=Chicago+Daily+Tribune&desc=Russia+and+Mali+Sign+Trade%2C+Cultural+Pacts&pqatl=google this (cited in the article and by the nom) are independent and secondary, but at 50 and 38 word each, respectively, I would not consider this coverage "significant". Then there's http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=gSMRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3OIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2358,2846574&dq=mali+russia this 28 word article, currently being used as ref--again, this anything but detailed coverage. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=8jsYooBH9JkC This book on Mali has a few passing mentions of the Soviets, but again, nothing that constitutes direct detailed coverage of Soviet-Mali bilateral relations, so I don't establish notability. If someone can dig up something independent that actually covers this topic directly and in depth (i.e. more than a few hundred words), I'll reconsider, but for now I'm not seeing anything that suggests this "topic" is notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG)