Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macau order of precedence

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Until the sourcing question is resolved, that is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Macau order of precedence[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not cite any source. I cannot find any official order of precedence of the Macau SAR. The current list is just an imitation of Hong Kong order of precedence. Mike Rohsopht (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mike Rohsopht (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to A.55 of the Macau SAR Basic Law the order of precedence is to be fixed by statute. Was such a statute ever actually issued? If so I'd lean keep based on WP:NEXIST. Macau almost certainly does have an order of precedence fixed in law which is notable for the same reason that the HK order of precedence is notable (sure, WP:WAX, but in this case I'd say it's pretty well established that orders of precedence are notable). FOARP (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FOARP. SpinningSpark 22:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced. DrKay (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a likelihood a system of similar sort exist, however, there is no source indicating the truthfulness of the article. Viztor (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NORESCUE; even the intro sentence is unverifed vagueness with no source and should have died through WP:PROVEIT years ago. WP:NPOSSIBLE only bends so far before it becomes "The Emperor's New Clothes". The Macau SAR started in 1993: It's not ancient history; it's an existing entity with modern online coverage. Yet the whole article has been sitting there since 2007 without any evidence, and I still can't find proof of the article subject existing in a brief Google search. There's not even a source for the intro sentence to show that the subject "is" at all, let alone that it's what the sentence says it is. Article 55 of the Basic Law of Macau seems to be translated in some sources as "If the Chief Executive of the Macao Special Administrative Region is not able to discharge his or her duties for a short period, such duties shall temporarily be assumed by the secretaries of the departments in the order of precedence, which shall be stipulated by law." That sounds more like an order of succession to me than an honorary order of precedence. WP:CRYSTAL prohibits "unverifiable speculation or presumptions" and reminds us that "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item." If sources are still not forthcoming after 11+ years to even prove that the subject came into existence, let alone its basic attributes, that's far below the threshold needed for WP:GNG. --Closeapple (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Closeapple. Can be recreated if sourcing ever turns up. Bondegezou (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be complete original research on hypothetical 'hierarchy.' Zero sources and no evidence they can be found for this exact alleged order. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.