Deletion of Fujifilm X10

Comment: A simple  style search show multiple significant reviews of the camera in mainstream sources like http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2399338,00.asp PC Magazine and https://techcrunch.com/2011/12/12/review-fujifilm-x10/ TechCrunch, and quite in-depth reviews in specialist publications like https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x10 DP Review and http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/X10/X10A.HTM Imaging Resource. This camera is also notable for an early technical fault, the "white orb" problem, which forced a product-wide firmware update: sources include https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4785041157/fujifilm-x10-white-orb-update, https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3340468423/fujifilm-x10-orbs-investigated-does-the-firmware-fix-work, and an http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1568603 SPIE paper. Multiple in-depth reliable sources show notability per . A notable topic and an article with  for improvement suggest keeping the article. I am not opposed to a summary article describing the Fujifilm X-series cameras--indeed we already have one at Fujifilm X-series. But there is plenty of sourcing for a stand alone X10 article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:GNG||WP:POTENTIAL)

Comment: all three cameras. One article per product is absolutely not an established convention. If that were true, Wikipedia would be a catalog, and it's .  The guideline Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) specifialy says, at  "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion."  At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamaha FZ700 this was discussed in depth and I found numerous examples of deletions on the grounds that each individual model of motorcycle did not merit an article, and zero examples of motorcycle articles kept because they were a model, without also meeting . The misconception about product models is an ongoing problem. Part of this is due to the formatting issue created when you have three {{tl|Infobox camera}}s or {{tl|Infobox motorcycle}}s and not enough text to support the vertical space they take up when stacked. We need a technical solution to this, which is possible. But the proliferation of articles for each model of something has to be beaten back whenever possible
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:PRODUCT||WP:GNG)

Comment: One article per product is the established convention across Wikipedia, and has almost universally been applied to camera articles. |Arbitrary decisions about which articles are allowed to stand alone are rather problematic, especially when economic interests are involved. Note that I fully support having summary articles - we have these at all levels - Fujifilm products, X series products, etc. As DGG has said, there is no particularly slick name offering itself in this case. Convention would suggest "Fujifilm X10 series
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)