This article was nominated for deletion on 20 November 2016. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.
A fact from Elm Ridge Cemetery, North Brunswick appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 December 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cemeteries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cemeteries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CemeteriesWikipedia:WikiProject CemeteriesTemplate:WikiProject CemeteriesCemeteries articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The Findagrave guide says to use it "almost never" not "never", they are not synonyms. It is perfectly appropriate to use them here in an article on the cemetery and the tombstones contained in the cemetery. It is no different than if the images were stored in Wikimedia Commons and used as a reference that this person was buried here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would also not be an appropriate source to support the claim that these are "notable" burials. Per WP:BURDEN, it is the responsibility of the person wanting to add/restore the material (in this case, you) to provide such sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTPEOPLE does not apply, that is for stand-alone list articles. This is a minor fact about the article (the cemetery) and is entirely appropriate and adequately sourced. MB04:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTPEOPLE says: "If the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met." and "the names of non-notable people may be included in a list that is largely made up of notable people, for the sake of completeness." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We're not listing every single person who is buried in the cemetery, whether we include those two or not, so "completeness" is not a valid argument in favour of including them. Nor is 1E, because burial in this cemetery doesn't make them "famous". We need inclusion criteria for the list, and notability and/or reliable sourcing are both good options. I understand that you think you should be cited, but there's not a good rationale to do so here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion criteria I used is anybody known to be anything but an ordinary citizen, including military veterans. Since there are many hundreds of burials here and the list contains just six people, I don't think it is overly broad. Furthermore, you have not questioned the two Civil War veterans; the two Revolutionary War veterans are no more or less notable. It appears your true complaint is with the source. Find-a-grave is appropriate here as it is only used to verify basic information that is easily confirmed with the photographs. MB15:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The photographs can confirm only what the gravestones say, not where they are or (in the case of Pumyea) that he was anything but an ordinary citizen. Your proposed inclusion criteria would result in requiring the list to be overly broad to be complete; this is trending into WP:NOT territory, as well as a list source problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
