Deletion of JVC GZ-MG135

Comment: Wikipedia is |not a JVC catalog. The article reads like it was written from the owner's manual, complete with "what comes in the box." Should there be a Wikipedia article for every product which was ever offered for sale by any company which had two product reviews? I think not. A short product review falls short of a demonstration of notability. It would be more appropriate to have a list of JVC camcorders with the features of each model, the date introduced, separated by the mode of recording (tape, hard drive, etc.) I cannot find such an article. There are no refs to show that it was a significant development in the history of camcorders, or a landmark product for the manufacturer
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: I've been carefully avoiding using the word ''keep'' or ''delete'' here because I'm in agreement with DGG that there are cases where current policy and guidelines (which would point to a ''keep'') produce undesirable results. I think Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with an article on JVC camcorders covering the whole range, because that would allow for different models to be placed in context, but I'm sure that most of the sources would be about specific models such as the reviews cited here. Any article on the whole range based on these sources could be slapped down as |original research because the sources don't explicitly talk about the range, so we are left with the situation where we can have articles on some models but not others based on the rather arbitrary criterion of whether they have been reviewed by easily accessible publications, and we don't have any real way of putting them in context
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)