Deletion of Worcestershire Record Office

Comment: please do not "vote" twice. The problem is not one of reliability, but of |notability. A Wikipedia article should be based on secondary sources. If those sources don't exist or offer only trivial information (such as the directory you mention), the topic is deemed non-notable and thus unsuitable for Wikipedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: If you didn't want people to "vote twice" why did you relist the AfD? And incidentally, the thresdhold for inclusion in WP is , not . The former is a policy. The latter is merely a guideline
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOTE)

Comment: the AfD was relisted so more people might contribute to the discussion. Of course those who have contributed before may continue to discuss the article's merits, but it is usual to describe that as comment, not as another !vote. Concerning  vs. : The latter says that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources ...", which this one does not and apparently cannot. And our #REASON|deletion policy states: "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following ... Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)" This article, despite your previous claims, fails both  and , so deletion is reasonable
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:V||WP:DEL||WP:N||WP:N||WP:ORG)

Comment: Enduring public institution. Meets  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOTE)

Comment: declaring an interest as a regular user).  There is a record office in every English and Welsh county.  The precise arrangements vary from one authority to another (partly for historic reasons).  When I first worked on WP, the use of archival sources was discouraged.  Today, they are sometimes cited, though a secondary source is preferable (if available).  As time goes on, we will probably get more citations of original documents, in which case it will be useful to have an article on the repository.  The present article provides a lot of unnecessary detail, which would be better left to appear on the website (which the record office will keep up to date).  I agree that the provision of independent sources is an issue, but I do not see why the Record Office's own website should not be regarded as 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Useful article, no good reason to delete it. Agree that the WRO website should be regarded as ar  as they have no reason to publish incorrect info
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: how precisely does it meet 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE)