Talk:Noley Thornton

Reconstitution
As a WP:BLP, I culled the article of all unverified information, striking everything uncited and rebuilt it with 100% referencing. The prior version is here for anybody interested in going back to try and reference any of the information that had been there with reliable sources. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 06:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Birthday
According to IMDB, her birthday is December 30, 1983.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0861572/?ref_=tt_cl_t9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.91.227 (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the IMDb isn't a reliable source. —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  05:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * putting c. 1980s is perfectly reasonable given the visual evidence of her physical appearance in her acting roles and there are plenty of Wikipedia articles where circa is an acceptable substitute for an unknown exact birth date. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What you believe to be "perfectly reasonable" is your interpretation and original research. —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  02:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Crud. I just changed her b-day back to 1983 based on both Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB without realizing this had at some point been contentious. However, what's missing here is any source or justification for a 1982 b-day. Is there something that makes 1982 superior to 1983? Or are they both best guess based on poorly-sourced information? If a RS doesn't exist, and the info is potentially incorrect or contentious, her DOB should not be listed at all, per [WP:BLP]. IMO, the sources we have (RT & IMDB) are weak (both user-edited), and the info is therefore potentially incorrect, but her DOB is a non-contentious statistic that does not qualify or disqualify her for anything. Besides, most people prefer to be thought of as young, and a younger age makes her remarkable acting as a child even more impressive. (Can that itself make it contentious?) I say we err on the side of youth and the existence of weak evidence as opposed to no evidence to the contrary. Otherwise we should delete her DOB from the article until a non-user-edited RS can be found. Either suits me. Dcs002 (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, how about this? It's a commercial source, not user-edited, and the info is not behind a paywall. I think it's stronger than other sources I've found, but I don't know much about the company, or whether the source is secondary or tertiary. I don't see anything that excludes it as a RS. The only source I've found so far that says 1982 is Google, which gets its info from WP. Thoughts? Dcs002 (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2019 (UTC)