Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Sheet Music


 * 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 delete. I see a lot of discussion below about possible sourcing, but I also see that the article is still unsourced, which means the delete arguments very much apply. Chick Bowen 22:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Sheet Music

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

'Delete.This article is a plug for an on-line commercial website. It is padded out, without explanation, with material which is a version of the article Digital Sheet Music which covers its topic adequately. Should it be agreed that the content of the present article 'Virtual Sheet Music' be deleted, it could be replaced by a redirect to Digital Sheet Music. Smerus 18:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Per above Rackabello 18:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete In actuality should have been tagged as a “Speedy Delete” for Spam. Shoessss 23:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember it being PRODed at one point, actually, then it was fixed up. Then it got tagged as an ad and THAT got fixed (yes it was worse!). This article has always felt /wrong/ to me, but I don't have a good argument as to why, so I can't really give a delete !vote. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫

I am the author of both the Virtual Sheet Music and Digital Sheet Music articles. They share a similar content, but the Virtual Sheet Music article should tell about the Virtual Sheet Music company which has been the creator of the Virtual Sheet Music concept. I think that can't be ignored. To remove that entry and redirect it to the Digital Sheet Music article would be like removing the Amazon article about the company and redirect it to the Amazon article about the river. Please, let me know your thoughts.--Fablau 21:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, what makes the website notable? There's no references in the ariticle, probably the reason this got put under AFD in the first place. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * to compare the Virtual Sheet Music website to Amazon counts as a notable piece of chutzpah; but seems to confirm that the main motive of this WP article was advertising. - Smerus 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. no secondary or tertiary sources provided, and Google News Archive only shows one match.  It is listed on  with a brief description ("The Virtual Sheet Music Web site doesn't have a huge selection, but it's constantly growing. You can even download a free template for manuscript paper. Files are in Acrobat PDF format."); if they are growing quickly then maybe the website will be notable in another year.  No prejudice against recreation when two significant mentions are made by reliable sources. John Vandenberg 13:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

When I first wrote that article, I was first flagged then I submitted proof of notability to Seraphimblade proving how Virtual Sheet Music has been reviewed on major music magazines and websites since 1999 as a notable company. To learn more about this issue, here is the talking discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Virtual_Sheet_Music

and then my article was accepted. Now what? Do I have to prove it again? --Fablau 21:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fablau, please do provide it again here. We need to know the precise details of the magazines it has appeared on, including the date of the issue it appeared in.  This is required for verification purposes. John Vandenberg 02:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. I have a PDF file containing all the documentation. How can I upload it here? Thank you again. --Fablau 15:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You cant. You will need to provide it as normal text here. John Vandenberg 09:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can download the PDF file from the Virtual Sheet Music server:

http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/storage/Main_Evidence.pdf

it includes detailed information and images of reviews, ads, charts, etc.

Here is a summary of the evidence:

1. Virtual Sheet Music and Classical Sheet Music Downloads are two concepts created in 1999 and now two registered trademarks. Virtual Sheet Music website started in 1999 with a few users. Now its user base is of over 20,000 unique users a day, over 70,000 mailing list subscribers and 15,000 resident Members (musicians, music teachers, students, libraries, music schools, musical institutions, etc.)

2. After only 8 months from its creation, Virtual Sheet Music was reviewed by Apple foreseeing the success that such a new and unique musical resource would have been able to have in the near future.

3. Virtual Sheet Music is today considered the first and foremost unique resource of Classical Sheet Music Download in the world by:

- Yahoo! (VSM is listed among the top popular websites)

- Safe Shopping Network

and it is at the first place in the results on the major search engines if you search for "Virtual Sheet Music":

- Yahoo!

- Google

- AltaVista

- Lycos

- MSN

- AOL

- Netscape

4. Virtual Sheet Music advertise regularly on the major classical music magazines and publications since 1999 such as:

- The Strad (over 100,000 readers internationally)

- Classical Music (over 30,000 readers internationally)

- Music Teacher (over 20,000 readers internationally)

- Zone magazine (over 20,000 readers internationally)

- Muso magazine (over 20,000 readers internationally)

- Sheet Music magazine (over 10,000 readers internationally)

- International Musician (over 100,000 readers internationally)

- Strings (over 100,000 readers internationally)

- Making Music (over 60,000 readers internationally)

- SBO (over 50,000 readers internationally)

- BBC Magazine (over 50,000 readers internationally)

and many others. It is yearly included in The British & International Music Yearbook as the TOP resource of Classical Sheet Music Download on the web.

5. Virtual Sheet Music regularly sponsors and supports various musical organizations as:

- BBC Orchestra (UK)

- Lyric Opera of Los Angeles (USA)

- The Seattle Symphony Orchestra (USA)

6. Virtual Sheet Music has been also reviewed on several music magazines such as:

- MUSO magazine Spring 2004

- Making Music July-August 2006

7. Virtual Sheet Music® began in December 2004 its own affiliate program and as today it has over 400 affiliates on the web and growing. They help to develop and distribute the concept of Virtual Sheet Music® that is having such a great success among the international musical community.--Fablau 22:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed the PDF you supplied, and am not convinced VSM is notable enough to warrant an article dedicated to it. The PDF provides evidence of only two reviews: "MUSO magazine Spring 2004, page 20" and "Making Music July-August 2006, p38" -- neither of these are in depth reviews, but they are a good start.  If you can provide a few more reviews like that, I will change my opinion to keep. John Vandenberg 05:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I will provide more reviews, but please do consider the Apple's review as well. Also, please, consider the maturity of our company (over 8 years old which is pretty much for a web company) as well the user base and reach we have, notability should be also based on the "popularity" of a company, right? One further question: are you the only person to decide the destiny of my article? Shouldn't be a "commission" or group of people? Just wondering... thank you for you consideration and time though.--Fablau 16:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I really think you're missing the whole point of Wikipedia. I suggest you read up on the following: WP:5P, WP:NOT and especially WP:V. WP:COI might apply here too. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reminder, I already read those pages and know very well the Wikipedia philosophy. I think we shouldn't be distracted, the point here is to discuss about the notability of Virtual Sheet Music to understand if it deserve an article. That's it.--Fablau 20:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment-I don't understand what the problem is. Is the opinion that the company isn't notable enough? Temperal xy 22:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My opinion is just one; others are free to add their opinion too, but ultimately the opinions of the majority are in the Wikipedia notability guideline. In short, most things on Wikipedia must have been significantly reviewed by two authoritative sources.  So far we have evidence of two minor reviews by authoritative sources, so it is approaching our threshold.  The Apple review could count as a third, but reviews from software Vendors are not generally considered to be impartial.  I have no problem with VSM having an article if evidence is provided of more critical analysis of the website; I look forward to Fablau providing details about more reviews.  John Vandenberg 22:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.