Deletion of Jesuitenmission

Comment: to Society of Jesus#Social and development institutions per SoWhy, merging any independently-sourced content (of which, as far as I can see, there is at the moment none). It's been suggested that there must be sources and it's just a matter of finding them, and that may be right; but until and unless someone does that and produces those sources, this page cannot meet the notability requirements of 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCORP)

Comment: Redirect''', '''Userify''' or '''send to AfC'''   I see we are nearly all struggling with German sourcing and the obvious problem that many of the sources clearly are not quality , but left with the question if there might be two that are.  This is not the first AfD I did not want to vote on because of the struggle of translating the entirely foreign sourcing--when most does NOT appear to be secondary. I spent forever working on the AfD on a bus line in India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Latur_Municipal_Transport Latur Transport), where all the sourcing was in a multitude of Indian languages.  There seems to be an increasing burden on us at AfD to deal with these translation issues.  If an editor wants to use entirely foreign sourcing for notability like this, I think it would be reasonable for us to put more of the burden on the editor/creator of the article to prove to us the sourcing is good.  This is, after all, an English encyclopedia primarily edited by English language editors.  At the same time, I completely acknowledge that an article in Der Spiegel or Le Monde is just as good as an article in NYT for establishing .   I'm curious what others think about this issue and foreign sources and how we might deal with it.  Maybe we need an overall discussion about this challenge somewhere
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: per DGG and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST)