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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LeadFormix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure marketing company. Ranked lower (at #18) than the equally obscure Officeautopilot in a market survey. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Appears to be a self-published company. Bad references. LogicalCreator (talk) 08:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Little coverage of the subject by secondary sources outside press releases, which are not reliable. The subject does not meet the general notability guideline.--xanchester (t) 15:02, 29 October 2012 (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.