Deletion of List of businesses in Omaha

Comment: per . The nominator seems to be confused about the purpose of the  policy; it was created to avoid Wikipedia become a poor, badly maintained copy of the original Yahoo or DMOZ, i.e. a partial, incomplete listing of links to external websites or entities. The nominated article is no such thing: it is a list of ''Wikipedia articles'' about companies, not a mere listing of companies. That makes all the difference, as the purpose of the list is to allow readers to reach the relevant article (i.e. no different to a category, and therefore allowed per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:LISTPURP||WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:NOTDUPE)

Comment: A bit of good faith should be applied here as the article title is misleading. It isn't just a indiscriminate list of businesses in Omaha (of which I would most certainly support deletion) but it really a list of notable companies or corporations that are centered in Omaha. I support renaming the article to suit the lists true purpose The outlying issue is that the list has been used for promotional by local businesses - I recently culled a good number of them, and could probably do plenty more, but this is really just a cleanup issue that can be easily maintained. So long as there is enough notable companies to be included in the list criteria, it passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: fails  and  per nom, no significance for this topic, could easily develop into unneeded 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:NOTDIR||WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: Qualifies for an article per  relative to :Category:Companies based in Omaha, Nebraska. Also qualifies as a functional navigational aid per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:NOTDUP||WP:LISTPURP)

Comment: per  and , this list has a well-defined inclusion criteria, serves as a useful navigation tool, takes the place of a list as a part of the Economy of Omaha article, and similar lists can be found in reliable sources, such as regional trade magazines and newspapers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:LISTPURP||WP:LISTN)

Comment: The majority of the entries ''do'' have WP articles, but for those that don't, per |LISTCOMPANY {{tq|A company or organization may be included in a list of companies or organizations whether or not it meets the Wikipedia notability requirement, unless a given list specifically requires this. If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group.}} I'm not seeing anything in  that clearly overrules this, and if we don't want such lists to remain we'll have to get the policies and guidelines changed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LISTCOMPANY||WP:NOT)

Comment: A well-organized list of notable businesses in a well-defined area. This is exactly what lists are for. Per the editing guideline , lists and categories are intended to co-exist and '''"these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others."''' Irrational fears inspired by the essay  are hardly a justification for deletion; for that matter, *every* list must be deleted lest LISTCRUFT become a problem once we take this to its illogical conclusion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates (WP:CLN||WP:LISTCRUFT)