Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EReviewBook
I did a pretty long search for any sort of reliable secondary source and was unable to find any. There just aren't any reliable sources to show that this particular educational app is notable. To address the editor's concern on the article's talk page that there was a double standard at play here, most of the pages had multiple independent reliable sources to show notability. Even if they didn't, the argument that |other things exist on Wikipedia is not an argument that will keep the article. All that a unproperly sourced wiki entry means is that someone hasn't gotten around to listing or speedying the article yet. To prove that the article passes notability guidelines you will have to show multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. Links to the company website and Amazon.com cannot be used to show notability, nor can links to sites where the content is user generated. (So no link to CNET unless the product is reviewed by one of the site's staff members
— User:Tokyogirl79, 21:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)