Deletion of Macau order of precedence

Comment: https://books.google.pl/books?id=nF-zCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=Macao+%22order+of+precedence%22&source=bl&ots=QfIdztQQv-&sig=ACfU3U1xKZDAqDe8PDIlU6us2HsMxctFrQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi5ncOG7NbiAhUFIlAKHQhdDwcQ6AEwCnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=Macao%20%22order%20of%20precedence%22&f=false 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 . 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, , but in this case I'd say it's pretty well established that orders of precedence are notable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEXIST||WP:WAX)

Comment: WP:NORESCUE; even the intro sentence is unverifed vagueness with no source and should have died through  years ago.   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.   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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:PROVEIT||WP:NPOSSIBLE||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:GNG)