This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Paige Brooks".

  • If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale".
  • If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion".
  • If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution".

In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page.

Deletion rationale

Apparently this is not the person in question, nor has said person ever appeared on DS9 or any other incarnation of Star Trek. I'm not sure the source of the original identification, but based on the talk page, it seems to be based solely on a visual ID and an (inaccurate) IMDB reference. See User talk:Info19 for more. --Alan (talk) 07:20, December 1, 2019 (UTC)


That is correct, Gvsualan. As a representative of Paige Brooks, we are asking that this page be deleted. Dr. Brooks is not a Star Trek actress and the information on the Paige Brooks Memory Alpha page is inaccurate. All inaccurate credit for the DS9 role has been removed from IMDb and all other online sources. This Memory Alpha page is the last source of the inaccurate information. Unfortunately, the page is appearing in search engines and displaying incorrect information for Dr. Brooks. As a result, we would like to have the Memory Alpha page removed as soon as possible. What is the process for getting the page deleted? Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. -- Info19 (talk) 23:59, December 9, 2019 (UTC)

Delete. -- Renegade54 (talk) 00:04, December 10, 2019 (UTC)

Delete. -- Info19 (talk) 00:33, December 10, 2019 (UTC)

I for one still have questions. The actor's self-declared representative has assigned blame as to who claimed that Brooks filled the role on her own website, but has not explained how or why this happened. It seems very odd for someone who presumably had some kind of access to the actor to accidentally link her to such an extremely obscure role if she had nothing to do with it. Maybe even if this page were deleted we should note that while we don't know who played the role, at one point the website for one Page Brooks claimed that she was the one. Kinda dickish because it goes against Info19's stated goal of cleaning up Brook's google results, but it's perfectly true, and doesn't make that a fair solution? -- Capricorn (talk) 02:46, December 12, 2019 (UTC)

The email I received

I am confused. Did her management change? Because twelve years ago, when I contacted her management by using the link on her website, her manager/representative sent me an email. I still have this email and added a screenshot here. True that she is no Star Trek actress as said by "Info19" above but even Paige Brooks started to work as an "extra" on film and television before she got other parts. I know that many actors or performers don't want to have listed their "extra work" or "background work"... -- Tom (talk) 10:27, December 12, 2019 (UTC)
In light of this evidence, Info19 has clearly not been upfront with us. I knew there was an agenda here. --Alan (talk) 12:22, December 12, 2019 (UTC)
I've removed my delete vote based on Tom's new information. I agree, it appears that some sort of whitewash is being pursued for some reason. There's enough manipulation of the truth going on in the media today without us participating as well. Perhaps Dr. Paige Brooks, PhD is attempting to recast her image in some way, and Trek isn't part of the desired result. -- Renegade54 (talk) 15:50, December 12, 2019 (UTC)
Interestingly, her entry at has been removed as well: Paige Brooks -- Renegade54 (talk) 15:56, December 12, 2019 (UTC)

We are surprised by the ongoing discussion for what is a very straightforward matter. I personally spoke with Dr. Brooks regarding this matter and she sends her regards and best wishes. She is flattered that so many of you care and would like to ensure you that our team is working hard to get the record set straight so your website is accurate. Years ago, unfortunately, a member of the Paige Brooks team was mistaken regarding Dr. Brooks making a DS9 appearance. The team that is currently in place is remedying that previous mistake. We regret this ever happened and are doing everything we can to fix it in a timely fashion. Please accept our apologies. Yes, DS9 was incorrectly listed on multiple websites. That incorrect information has since been removed except for this incorrect listing: the Paige Brooks Memory Alpha page. Regarding NowCasting: Dr. Brooks is no longer affiliated with NowCasting, thus the removal of her listing. She has different, updated representation and cannot be booked directly via NowCasting. It is a disservice to NowCasting and Dr. Brooks to have a misleading link/page. We appreciate your cooperation and assistance and agree with you that having accurate information available is of utmost importance. If you have questions or require any confirmation on my role in the organization, please feel free to email and we will get back to you as soon as possible. We are happy to provide details for those of you who are surprisingly skeptical. Let's work together to correct this mistake and make your lovely website accurate! Thanks, again, for your understanding and support! Info19 (talk) 03:53, December 15, 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing straight forward with this whatsoever. I'm not sure what kind of scam you are trying to run here, but when we have an email from the exact same website/email address that says the exact opposite of what you are now saying... no, you are re-writing history because someone is a doctor now and doesn't want some trivial, but apparently not, thing from their past haunting them. That's what I see, and appears to be the general vibe of the community, as far as I see it. --Alan (talk) 06:19, December 15, 2019 (UTC)

This process is becoming very frustrating. We assure you this is not a scam and have previously explained the unfortunate mistake in previous years. The current team for Paige Brooks is actively correcting that mistake. It seems that your website is the only place where that mistake is still appearing. We have invited you to email us directly at or alternatively, please visit the website, click on the Contact link, and email directly from the official website. We assure you that any educational accomplishments have nothing to do with her acting career. If she had appeared as a Star Trek actress, she would most certainly be very proud to represent your community. Please be supportive and cooperative with this process. We cannot have inaccurate information anywhere online. I am sure you understand. Unfortunately, we do not understand the exact procedure for deleting this page, but will contact the support team, once again, for additional information on the process of deletion. Thank you for your support and understanding so we can keep your website accurate. Paige Brooks appreciates that you are a fan and we invite everyone to follow her career via her website and social media. She participates in many other exciting film and television roles, in addition to her fashion and pageantry careers, and enjoys sharing those journeys with her fans. Thank you all. Info19 (talk) 21:21, December 15, 2019 (UTC)

Delete. If there is uncertainty about whether or not a person appeared on Star Trek, then they shouldn't have a page. We should only have a page for an actor if we're 100% sure it was them. --NetSpiker (talk) 06:14, December 16, 2019 (UTC)
Are there more than one Paige Brooks?--Memphis77 (talk) 06:35, December 16, 2019 (UTC)
Netspiker, you, like Info19 are completely glossing over the facts. We were 100% certain (with documented proof) it was then, until they completely renigged their original statement. --Alan (talk) 19:10, December 16, 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we were 100% sure, but we're not anymore. Info19's explanation that a member of Paige Brooks' team made a mistake is just as plausible as your theory that Paige Brooks is ashamed of her Star Trek role and is attempting to change history. If we do end up keeping the page, there should be a note on it and on the Bashir 62 holograms page that the identity of the actress is in dispute. --NetSpiker (talk) 00:51, December 17, 2019 (UTC)

There is a Tiffany Paige Brooks that looks similar to Paige Brooks (she is also blonde). If you Google Paige Brooks sometimes her photo pops up. It seems we're making progress, so let's wrap up this discussion and get the page deleted or possibly corrected/updated with Tiffany's information if she is the appropriate actress. If not, someone needs to find the correct actress who appears in the photo that has since been deleted. We know all of you want to have an accurate website. And, once again, if you have any questions or doubts, feel free to visit Paige Brooks' official website and email us directly from the Contact page. We are happy to address any of your issues or concerns. Thank you! Info19 (talk) 20:47, December 17, 2019 (UTC)

Delete. -- Info19 (talk) 20:49, December 17, 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really getting a "wants their extra work removed" vibe here, as IMDb still lists many of those type of parts without listing DS9, but I'm no expert on that either. - Archduk3 21:28, December 17, 2019 (UTC)
What I find interesting about this whole situation is that the whole "Paige wasn't in DS9" seemed to suddenly come about when we wouldn't allow the Info19 user to replace her article with a cut and paste from the website's biography. Which, btw, included a reference to DS9. After doing that a couple of times, suddenly it was demanded that the page be deleted because she wasn't in Star Trek. Then magically, when called out about it, the reference to her being in Star Trek vanished from her website biography and the user started getting it removed from other places (including IMDb).
Again, based on the comment posted by ThomasHL at Talk:Paige Brooks about 12 years ago... I think that there's something else going on here, possibly similar to past demands from actors and production staff to have articles (or portions thereof) removed from MA because they were suddenly embarrassed about their association with the franchise. -- sulfur (talk) 23:44, December 17, 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, Sulphur is quite correct, even Info19's cut and paste version of Paige's sugar-coated, spit-polished, self-back patting, lacquer-finished, unicorn glitter farts, everything is awesome website version of her bio does reference "Deep Space Nine", so they confirmed her appearance and contributed said fact themselves... then they changed their mind when we didn't want that non-conforming version of her bio.. --Alan (talk) 00:59, December 18, 2019 (UTC)
For the record, Info19's own contributions added: "Her numerous television show appearances include Everybody Loves Raymond, Baywatch, Deep Space Nine, Beverly Hills 90210, Charmed, Just Shoot Me, Diagnosis Murder, The Guardian, Crossing Jordan, and Gilmore Girls. Her countless television commercials include representing Pepsi, Burger King, Ford Motor Company, Goodyear, David’s Bridal, Candies Shoes, and Burlington Coat Factory." --Alan (talk) 01:07, December 18, 2019 (UTC)
Well, that is certainly a horse of a different color, keep. Spite makes people ugly, and is not a valid reason for removing information. I'm willing to wait if someone is working with her representation through her website, but if not I don't see much reason to continue to entertain a known liar. - Archduk3 16:00, December 18, 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep on the basis of Sulfur’s evidence, which strongly suggests that Info19 is not being honest in claiming that Dr. Brooks never appeared on Star Trek:Deep Space Nine. That said, I am not without sympathy for someone who might be frustrated that a page describing background work they did for a day or two comes up as a top Google result, over work that might have taken years to achieve, and which the person might be more proud of.
To that end, it might be worth considering whether we should develop a process for a page to be tagged with "noindex" (if the wiki software allows that), so that it can be found within Memory Alpha (for the value of Trek completeness) but would not appear in Google search results. I highly doubt that anyone would search Google because they want to know whether a former Miss Beverly Hills appeared as a casino patron in "Badda-Bing, Badda-Bang". Having a "noindex" option (to be used at the request of the subject) might prevent unfortunate events like this from recurring in future. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 00:22, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
Here's robots.txt, but as far as I know, we don't have the ability to edit it. -- Renegade54 (talk) 00:59, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
Ideally, the page should have a <meta name="robots" content="noindex" /> tag on it to prevent it from being indexed if that's the intent. -- Renegade54 (talk) 01:03, December 19, 2019 (UTC)

As we have explained on multiple occasions previously, one of the team members made a mistake and Dr. Brooks has since corrected us. The Biographer, J. Edwards, repeated said mistake in the Bio at It has since been corrected. We apologize for any confusion. At this juncture, we are just trying to do our job. We have invited all of you to contact us via Paige Brooks' official website to ask questions and/or discuss concerns. No one has reached out. You are still invited to contact us to discuss the deletion in a civilized, rational fashion. The insults appearing above are neither appreciated nor fruitful. Let's keep this discussion appropriate for this lovely forum and reach an amicable deletion agreement. Thank you for your support! Info19 (talk) 03:16, December 19, 2019 (UTC)

Info19, perhaps if you could explain why the email that Tom received says "she has always said what an honor it was to be associated with the Star Trek franchise", it might help convince the Memory Alpha community that you're telling the truth. Was the person who sent the email lying about hearing Paige Brooks say that? When did Brooks tell you that she never appeared on Star Trek? What prompted her to tell you? Was she unaware that her own website claimed for years that she was on Star Trek? Did you not know the truth when you copied and pasted Brooks' biography onto Memory Alpha at the beginning of December?--NetSpiker (talk) 09:21, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
Got to love the appeal to civilized, rational discussion from someone who has voted two times already. We might not be as easy going as say IMDb, but at least we're not the ones with an agenda. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:44, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
Info19, you just don't get it. You, yourself added "Deep Space Nine" to her article when you attempted to rewrite it a few weeks ago. I just provided that evidence against you, above. You, yourself included a disclaimer that said that the information from the website you were adding was "used with permission", so it doesn't matter how many times you try passing the buck off on J. Edwards, YOU did all of the above, confirming what we already knew, that she did appear on "Deep Space Nine". Where is your accountability in all of this? A lack of due diligence, after 12 years is hardly an excuse to justify your own actions of being an Indian giver. --Alan (talk) 20:19, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
What is an "Indian giver"?--Memphis77 (talk) 20:36, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
Is google down today? --Alan (talk) 20:40, December 19, 2019 (UTC)

We assure you, Capricorn, that there is no agenda, other than for accurate information to be displayed about Paige Brooks throughout the web. As you are already aware, we are not familiar with the rules here, so if voting twice is not protocol, please excuse the oversight/misstep. Regarding Gvsualan's concerns, I am happy to address all: Yes, I did a copy and paste of the Bio written by J. Edwards (and used with permission by to the Paige Brooks page on your website before I was made aware that she is not a DS9 actress. Said Bio was incorrect, as I previously explained, and has since been corrected. I did not realize that at the time of the copy and paste. As soon as the mistake was caught, no matter how many years later, all was confirmed with Dr. Brooks, who did not know of the mistake, and the team and I have swiftly made all corrections across numerous websites, as previously stated. Unfortunately, we have received surprising opposition from your community and have not been able to resolve this issue here. Otherwise, corrections have been made on all other websites to the best of our ability/knowledge. In other words, if we know about a mistake on a website, we have corrected it. If we are unaware of a website's existence, obviously something may have been overlooked, but we are really trying hard to ensure all is correct. We are in touch with your Support Team/Admin and hope to have the page removed as soon as possible. Thank you to those of you who understand that mistakes do happen and who have voted for the page's deletion. Your support in keeping accurate information and good community standards is appreciated! Happy holidays to all! Info19 (talk) 04:28, December 24, 2019 (UTC)

Memphis77, an 'indian giver' generally means someone who gives something to another and then takes it back(I don't endorse that definition, simply giving it). Alan, some of us still like to converse with other human beings instead of running to Google everything. 31dot (talk) 08:21, December 24, 2019 (UTC)
Dot, not when it is off-topic...--Alan (talk) 05:25, December 26, 2019 (UTC)

Greetings to all! This is Paige Brooks. I want to thank each of you personally for your interest in and support of my career. It seems there has been heated debate regarding a page that is listed here on your lovely website. My team has just brought this matter to my attention, and I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight and get this corrected. There have been some miscommunications on the part of former team members in previous years. However, recently, upon my directive, current team members are attempting to ensure all information appearing online related to my brand is accurate. Naturally, we all want information to be correct and not fraudulent. Unfortunately, your page does not reflect accurate information about me, including a photo, which is of another actress. Therefore, I am writing personally to request that your Paige Brooks page be removed. While I would be honored to be a Star Trek actress, it is not the case. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and for working with my team to have this corrected as soon as possible. I appreciate your assistance and understanding. Best wishes to all! Paige Brooks (talk) 01:41, February 22, 2020 (UTC)

Please see the above post and new request for deletion. Thank you for your cooperation in deleting this incorrect, fraudulent page. Paige Brooks (talk) 02:01, February 22, 2020 (UTC)

Delete. (talk) 02:01, February 22, 2020 (UTC)

Earlier notes (2007)

I think the unidentified user who changed information on this site knows something about Ms. Brooks. I thought I was right with the pictures I've added, because this woman looks almost like Ms. Brooks, and in my opinion more than the person actually pictured. But it is also possible, this woman is not very good to see. Perhaps the anonymous user could come up here and tell us why he/ she removed the birthdate. It is from IMDb and looks like it was given to this site by Ms. Brooks management, as well as several of the credits/ uncredited roles. Thanks. – Tom 04:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

In the last days I was in e-mail contact with the management behind Paige Brooks. The anonymous user who corrected and removed information on this article is one of Ms. Brooks staff, he confirmed it via e-mail. I will remove the birth year again and please don't add it to the article, because no one really knows if it is the right year.

Here is the e-mail, I think it would be better to post it here:

We are happy to provide/ update the information. Thank you, again, for your wonderful article and great care in writing, correcting, etc. Your support is greatly appreciated!
Generally, as with most celebrities, we prefer to keep birth dates from being publicly published. In keeping with Ms. Brooks' wishes, we will continue to keep that information private. So, I will not comment on whether or not the date(s) is correct. Thank you for your understanding.
Feel free to write back with any questions and also reference the Official website and IMDB for further information regarding Ms. Brooks and her body of work.
Have a wonderfully prosperous New Year!

I think we should respect the wish of Ms. Brooks, like we did it with a fellow Star Trek performer. – Tom 09:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Admin resolution

Since this has gone dormant for two months, and our information is more verifiable than theirs. Keeping. --Alan (talk) 20:17, February 21, 2020 (UTC)

Deleted, conditionally. Not that important of a subject to keep rehashing. –Gvsualan (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.