Deletion of RouterTech (2nd nomination)

Comment: There is no substantial coverage in reliable third party sources. I have every sympathy with the people who have come here to defend the article with little or no understanding of how Wikipedia operates, only to find that the reasons they put forward in good faith are not given much weight. I am aware from my own early experiences as a newbie Wikipedian how frustrating such experiences can be. However, the fact remains that none of their arguments goes any significant way towards establishing notability by Wikipedia's standards. We have several arguments intended to show notability which just don't relate at all to Wikipedia's guidelines, such as "RouterTech firmware is available via user loading on a range of home routers, in addition it is loaded at factory by some manufacturers", and "RouterTech firmware is in active development". Then we have arguments that Wikipedia's guidelines are wrong, such as comments about "peremptory dismissal of so-called personal web sites". Then we have straw-man arguments, that is to say attempts to answer arguments which nobody has proposed, such as that coverage in non-English language sites will be automatically treated as "irrelevant", and even that "online" coverage will be regarded as irrelevant. (Ironically, I have frequently seen inexperienced editors in AfDs thinking that any source which is not online will be regarded as irrelevant.) Then we have the  arguments, such as "This firmware project is as notable as the Openwrt, DD-Wrt, Tomato, Hyperwrt, Gargoyle firmware projects..." and "Why pick on RouterTech - Wikipedia is full of articles with dead/broken/obsolete links". However, nowhere do we have any convincing argument that there is in fact substantial coverage in anything that by Wikipedia's guidelines can be regarded as a reliable third party source. The links to sources we have been given, such as http://www.pcwintech.com/wireless-setup-routertech-v28-routertech-firmware this one and http://it.bongolinux.com/how-to-installare-firmware-routertech-25-su-roper-roadsl2p-wg/14164/ this one are simply not substantial coverage in independent sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: Non-notable Linux hack for a small number of DSL modems or routers.  Google News hits are forum postings, not |reliable sources.  Note also that there is apparently a woodworking business using the same name.  While notifying the original author may not be technically required, it is a (groan) "best practice".  You may cut off one of my fingers now for using the phrase. (Also rang in on the original AfD
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Topic fails . Full disclosure: I was the nominator responsible for the previous AfD. The creator of the article was not notified of the AfD because rticles for deletion#Notifying interested people '''''does not''''' require it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:A)