Deletion of Emperor Entertainment Group

Comment: all of them. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion and is not an extension of this company's web platforms, . All fail GNG, CORP, and CORPDEPTH
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMO)

Comment: the wording of the article does not determine notability and suitability for inclusion. It is the available sources that determine whether or not an article is kept. As has been shown, the available sources are seriously lacking and demonstrate subjectivism and promotionalism - the exact opposite of significant third party coverage in |multiple reliable sources.  Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion and it is not an extension of a company's website
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: as blatantly promotional and excluded by . The question of whether or not they meet the general notability guideline does not matter in this case as it is not the sole factor as to whether or not we keep an article. Cunard's sourcing does not demonstrate that these are essential articles to the encyclopedia, and , the overarching guideline that the general notability guideline is of but one part, makes it abundantly clear that passage of the GNG alone is not enough for inclusion: the articles also must pass the ''policy'' of . In this case you have lovely descriptors such as {{tq|Dedicated to nurturing young talents, EEG is the cradle of many of the hottest artistes in the Hong Kong music industry. Artistes under EEG management are frequent award winners of the territories' various annual music award ceremonies.}} throughout the text of all the articles.{{pb}}In deciding what to do in blatant cases of failing NOT,  lists deletion as an option among others: my test for this is whether or not the Wikipedia article would likely be the most significant coverage a subject would have received, in which case promotional language with promotional intent would be a clear violation of our most fundamental principle |Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising platform. Having reviewed all of Cunard's sourcing, it fails this test for me, and the correct way to deal with this based on the principles of Wikipedia is deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:N||WP:WHATISTOBEDONE||WP:5P1)

Comment: Sources referred to by Cunard are invariably relying on material originating with the company or company sources. I do not have the time nor inclination to check all 50 sources produced by Cunard since every other time Cunard produces these lists, 99% of the time the references fail the criteria for establishing notability including  and . If Cunard can't be bothered checking the sources then I don't see why the onus should be on the rest of us to identify the needle in the haystack. From the sources in the articles, they are press releases, company announcements, routine business announcements and information that can also be found on their own web pages. Fails  and/or . I also agree that the article fails  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:CORPDEPTH||WP:ORGIND||WP:SPIP||WP:NOT)