Deletion of PDQ (restaurant)

Comment: sourcing doesn't meet our standards: not independent, not enough depth, or utterly local and feel good (see depth). This combined with what K.e.coffman pointed out above, swings it to delete. As for SoWhy's relisting comment,  lists deletion as a viable option for dealing with NOT violations, and as recent consensus at AfDs is showing, violation of NOTSPAM is considered reason alone for deletion by many in the community regardless of sourcing. In this case, we get a double shot, because it fails both the NOT prong of  as well as the general guideline prong. The policy based way of dealing with this article is to delete it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:WHATISTOBEDONE||WP:N)