Deletion of List of companies of the Bahamas

Comment: as I agree with the nominator. Wikipedia is not a business directory, so this fails #DIR. If there is any doubt, this list does not contain any encyclopedic content. If there were any evidence of notability, then there might be a reason to retain it, but there isn't
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per a pretty Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List_of_companies_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates|strong consensus that :Category:Lists of companies by country|lists of companies by country are valuable to Wikipedia and do not violate any part of #DIR. Systemic bias against Kuwait would be resolved by DRV'ing the Kuwaiti list, which was deleted based on rather weak arguments, and there may have been procedural issues there as well (there was no comment in that AfD for a full ''11 days'' after nomination, then a relist and a bunch of comments happened in a 24-hour period, then the article was apparently significantly rewritten, after which there was no comment for ''7 days''... something smells fishy about that AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:CSB)

Comment: very similar but inferior to http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=List_of_Kuwaiti_companies_(deleted_05_Jul_2008_at_17:03) List_of_Kuwaiti_companies so to keep this would be |systemic bias against Kuwait
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:CSB)

Comment: but prune non-notable entries (many of those in the "Other" section look like candidates for removal).  The list is a service to our readers by giving them an overview of notable Bahamian businesses, about which we have or should have articles, with links to articles we have.  I agree with DGG that the list serves our readers in ways that a category couldn't.  It also serves the editors by identifying articles that should be written.  In response to the invocation of , that ''essay'' (not policy or guideline) paints with too broad a brush.  I agree with the essay to some extent.  That there's one article of a particular type doesn't mean there should be another; perhaps the first is exceptional or perhaps the first should also go.  But when there's a multitude of articles of that type, it goes beyond "other crap exists" and reflects the community's judgment that such articles are appropriate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:WAX)