Deletion of Pottsylvania

Comment: Alright, just stop right now, this debate is totally not grounded in reality anymore. We are not going to ignore the rules, as there is no reason to, and the article must either assert notability through reliable referencing, or it should be deleted. All these keep votes are just filibustering, and accomplish nothing. Keep votes not backed up with any actual assertion of notability are meaningless, so please stop wasting everyones time. Google searches mean nothing unless there are reliable sources within them, which is totally not a given, and "hinting at potential sources" is equally meaningless without actual proof. It is the responsibility of those who would keep the article to assert notability. Finally, it is absurd the way people voting keep are totally ignoring the nominating concerns and wikipedia policy in making their arguments, so if you are going to participate in this discussion, please look over Wikipedia policies, such as , , 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:FICTION||WP:WAF)

Comment: This is one of those articles that just |seems so notable, and I am |shocked that it has nary a cite.  Backing up Squidfryerchef's comments, it seems that time ought to be allowed for editors to find |articles or even Nick at Night cites
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:RS)