Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of companies of the Bahamas

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 keep. Keep- major international companies "hide" here. Intro should explain why these companies are HQ'd in Bahamas. Should likely only include those international HQ's (

List of companies of the Bahamas

List of companies of the Bahamas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Wikipedia is

Also, by extension, I think we may need to delete all the articles begining with "List of companies of..." There are 116 of them[1]. These are best handeled as categories, and that will do a fine job of taking care of notability issues. NJGW (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Adding "List of companies in..."[2] and "List of companies based in..."[3]. NJGW (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've striken the addition of the other lists as several editors have pointed out that they are not technically added properly. This AFD can therefore serve as a test case, perhaps leading to a certralized discussion. NJGW (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The categories can't deal with indicating the subject field, or other information that could be added. The actual problem with this one is the very large proportion with redlinks. This can be taken to represent cultural bias, or to indicate that most of the companies there aren't notable & should be removed. Since at least the major newspapers there certainly would warrant articles, and the Port Administration andthe Post Office likewise, & probably the banks, the solution is to write some more articles. DGG (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what do we do about the fact that this is nothing more than

a directory? There is no encyclopedic value to these lists. Their only stated and possible purpose is to be business directories. Even a list of notable companies is just a directory, and Category:Companies_of_the_Bahamas can be given any lead type information you could want. NJGW (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Just read Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY, this List has nothing to do with it. What exactly in WP:NOTDIRECTORY do you mean to cite? And, please cite it. --Mr Accountable (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See response to your similar comment below. NJGW (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there are a LOT more than 116 of them anyway.
  List of companies in Dallas, Texas, among countless others....those are only the ones that pop off the top of my head! Scootey (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What is your basis for saying 'keep'? Remember that this is

the existance of other articles does not excuse this one (those should just be added to the list discussed here). NJGW (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Under the logic of "no Directories" shouldn't that mean all "Lists" on Wikipedia should be deleted as they *all* would be operating as directories? CaribDigita (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A} You have not given a reason for keeping these lists as encyclopedic entries. B) You have not given a reason why these do not duplicate effective categories. C) If you have an issue with "no Directories", then that's a different question. The policy says "no directories", not "no lists". This is not a question about notability, but about the utility of these lists other than as a business directory... basically free advertising for which ever company is listed. If the lists are to be maintained however, the question then becomes whether we are more interested in notability of completeness, as well as what sort of sources to use for these questions and the question of whether an entry is included in one list or another (shall we list all the front companies for US tax evaders in the Bahamas?). NJGW (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just read Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY, this List has nothing to do with it. By repeatedly citing it, I think you're making the point of the Keeps, if it has indeed been read by the participants on this page. --Mr Accountable (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See response to your similar comment below. NJGW (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which front companies are being referred to? --Mr Accountable (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Object these hundreds of lists are not tagged for deletion and not listed here properly. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  talk) 11:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete (but only the article in question, I haven't reviewed others). This list wasn't crafted in an encyclopedic way and just seems to be a random list of businesses. What's the criteria for inclusion? Every business in the Bahamas? Every restaurant? If that's the case we might as well provide addresses and phone numbers, and start selling ad space. Scootey alluded to some other lists, but those are lists of companies based in some place (implying they operate in more than one place), not a list of every company operating there. That's still questionable, but at least narrows the field to something more discriminate. Alternatively a list of the largest companies would be enclopedic wrt. the Bahamas' economy. The number of redlinks indicate the category should have been filled out before creating this list. Fletcher (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this specific list per
  WP:STAND, as few, if any, of the entries there will every be notable enough to have their own entries. I also agree, in theory, that other similar lists should be evaluated, but as they are not properly included in the nomination, I am commenting only on this particular list.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:NOT#DIR seems to say keep, by my reading of it. --Mr Accountable (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Maybe there is a list of companies at the Bahamas Securities Exchange official website that can be turned into an article, viz FTSE 250 Index. --Mr Accountable (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I agree with the nominator. Wikipedia is not a business directory, so this fails
  WP:NOT#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. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Definitely does not fail

WP:NOT#DIR. --Mr Accountable (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, I suppose that's one way of interpreting the policy, but another might be that the list is a directory of businesses with no encyclopedic value, and that the list is inviolation of "Wikipedia is not the yellow pages... a resource for conducting business, ... [or] an indiscriminate collection of information." NJGW (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

WP:NOT#DIR. Of the 6 listed guidelines, please pick at least one and use it here at the discussion. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep List has a sub-one page history dating back to 2005, definitely not a spam trap. It looks well-maintained, no obvious problems, there don't appear to be any directory entries. As long as there is no List of companies traded on the Bahamas International Securities Exchange, this list will have to do. Here is the BISX list; there is some overlap. WP:NOT#DIR currently has 6 talking points; not one of them seems close to this nom. --Mr Accountable (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does the existance of an article make it encyclopedic? The other list you suggest seems to imply notability (even though it is still a business directory), and is actually

wp:verifiable. If you believe this information is encyclopedic, perhaps you should create that list instead of insisting that this completely non-encyclopedic list should stay. NJGW (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

On second thought, such a list would just be a mirror of the source you point out, and so would also not be in compliance with

the policy. Don't create it. NJGW (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The article is quite clearly encyclopedic per the overcited

WP:NOT#DIR. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The total lack of any third party

reliable sources doesn't strike you as an obvious problem? Fletcher (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Some of the companies have articles. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 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
  WP:WAX, 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. JamesMLane t c 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Can you explain the criteria under which businesses listed on this page are deemed notable? Or can you explain the notability of Asa H. Pritchard's groceries or the Alexiou, Knowles and Co. law firm? Because I don't see what it is. Would it be encyclopedic for me to create a page listing all the stores in my local town? Do I need to provide sources or can I just recite information from memory? Fletcher (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Local town? No. The Bahamas? Yes. Please see
      WP:NOT#DIR. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • What's so special about the Bahamas? There are less than 350,000 people there. Should we list every store in Mexico City? How about every store in China? Well, you claim this list is encyclopedic, so please explain how. (you also ignore the notability issue) NJGW (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, every store in
          WP:NOT#DIR, so let's check individual companies. Many of the companies put on this list are at Bahamas Securities Exchange#Listed companies; some are not. Some of the discussion topic's non-intersecting members of the set are notable, some may not be. For those which are not notable in and of themselves, we have some research to do. I would start with Pinder's Ferry Service, Pyfrom's Gifts and Alexiou, Knowles. There may be good reasons not to be listed on the BISX, maybe company is listed at another major exchange, maybe company is an important affiliate, maybe company is in the process of application to be listed. The companies on the BISX list can be added to the List of companies of the Bahamas. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Strong delete, very similar but inferior to List_of_Kuwaiti_companies so to keep this would be
  systemic bias against Kuwait. Benefix (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per a pretty
  WP:NOT#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). DHowell (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • reply I'm not sure what you mean by fishy... but in any case do you believe that the AFD for List of companies was fishy as well? See the consensus from the wikiproject below. NJGW (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I worked on the Kuwait list, thinking back, it was very inclusive, quite long, somewhat untended, and not written with particular attention to either English or to Wikistyles and formatting. I am sure that is the reason it was put up and deleted, and not because it was the List of companies of Kuwait. If I had time I might re-establish that list and do a proper job of it. It was at least a couple of years ago; I was probably User:McTrixie at the time. --Mr Accountable (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, must have been another list. That Kuwait list looks solid as per
        WP:NOT#DIR. Sometimes even the Wikipedia makes errors. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Delete My work here with Wikipedia frequently involves cleaning up promotional (and sometimes commercial) lists of stuff. Through these experiences I have noticed that the information that is provided in the lists is simply duplicated in categories. I prefer our category system as the method for grouping like items. List articles attract explosive and egregious material that I'm having difficulty maintaining effectively.
  Hi ' 06:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • note This is the preferred method given by consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies/Lists of companies by country. NJGW (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that the history of this list dates back to 2005, and is less than one page long. It's not attracting anything. --Mr Accountable (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not attracting anything? This occurred just a few days ago. What I meant was that the lists attract spam even more so that articles. Maybe this isn't what you meant? These types of problems are far less common with categories...
        Hi ' 07:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Nah, one page history over 3 or 4 years, that's no spam trap, that's clean. I have
          Tangiers on my watch, I know, those External links sections need to be cleaned out a few times a week, tourism industry spam. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
    • Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Lists says that lists are ok, and that categories are ok. I would think that having both is preferable to choosing between the two; the wikipedia is full of lists and categories. .... In thinking on lists and categories, one might ask oneself, how could a category be created out of articles that aren't written yet? If the article isn't written, it cannot go in a category! And yet we need some way of organizing the material; in this case, the companies of the Bahamas. So, we use a list. --Mr Accountable (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.