Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goods and Services Tax Act 2014


 * 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 redirect to Goods and Services Tax (Malaysia). ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 02:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Goods and Services Tax Act 2014

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

More suitable to be in wikisource  angys (Talk Talk) 16:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * How is that? it's not a copy of the law, so I can't see how it would fit there. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect It's redundant with Goods and Services Tax (Malaysia). There's an argument that all legislation, at least of national level legislatures, is notable, and if there was substantial material about the passage or nature of the law distinct from the tax it establishes, that would have some merit. But right now it's just a sentence and a list of contents. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Colapeninsula. There's no substantive content here to suggest a reason why this would require a separate article from the overview of the tax itself. Sure, legislation is notable in principle — but an article does have to be more substantive and better sourced than this before it needs to stand alone as a separate topic from the thing that was created by that legislation. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.