Keep; this is used attributively and free of context all over the place. One specific instance that comes to mind is a line from an old episode of WKRP, where Les comes home to find his aggressive new girlfriens has rearranged the living room furniture to all face one direction. Les sits in the central chair and comments that, "It feels like Star Trek." I also found (without straining myself) this Dave Sim quote regarding gender:
If the early push to equip all men with purses was a failure (“Men wear purses in Europe,” one feminist interjected, a hint of desperation in her tone, when I mentioned the subject socially), still virtually all of us in my generation, men and women, were – and are – wearing jeans of one description or another. Such major victories, however, are Pyrrhic ashes in the mouths of those for whom ideology is an absolute. If “gender interchangeability” is the hypothesis then there can be no rest until all societal fashions resemble those of the various Star Trek pyjamas-as-street-wear incarnations: interchangeability must be total.
Clearly the term is widespread in use as well. I really can't believe you nominated this. --EncycloPetey 20:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
How many other dictionaries list this? The above references are just that - direct references to the TV show or aspects of it, but in no way idiomatic. --Connel MacKenzie 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Who cares how many dictionaries do or don't have a particular word? That kind of numbers game is meaningless. Please judge the word on its own merit. Re-read the Dave sim quote where the word "Star Trek" is being used attributively to describe clothing. Look at the CNN quote AG gave below whose title is "Science fact:Scientists achieve 'Star Trek'-like feat". No mention of television or programs is made. Rather, the author assumes that the reader will know the context without providing it. The implication is of "futuristic, like science fiction", which is not a sum of parts meaning of star + trek. Would you delete Queen Anne because it is an obvious reference to the British monarch? --EncycloPetey 07:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
You expressed incredulity at the nomination itself, yet all other respectable dictionaries, (in fact, all dictionaries I've come across,) as a whole do not include promotional proper nouns, particularly relating to a commercial franchise. In the quote above, the extended phrase might be idiomatic, but the "Star Trek" portion of it is not...those two words are a direct (naming) reference to a specific TV program. Is "Queen Anne" a franchise or a commercial entity? --Connel MacKenzie 00:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that each time you respond, your reasons for wanting to see this deleted change? We include entries for species' scientific names, though I have never seen a major dictionary that does so. You wouldn't want William Henry Cosby, Jr as an entry, but it's in the AHD. Presence or absence in other dictionaries does not dictate inclusion or exclusion here. --EncycloPetey 00:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that my "reasons...change"; my initial nomination was a bit terse (as I thought this was obvious.) There are lots of reasons this doesn't belong here, but it seems that I'm wildly in the minority on this particular one. --Connel MacKenzie 20:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Here's CNN using the term:  One of many many such uses... ArielGlenn 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Massively widespread use to refer to both technology and society. bd2412T 23:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. I know it is used widely, including Malaysia. For goodness, keep it. 22.214.171.124 19:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
"The first series of the Star Trek franchise", as distinct from the primary sense, so e.g. "I watched Star Trek" is not a clear enough citation. Equinox◑ 16:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I doubt this. "I watched Star Trek" could be any Star Trek product, and even "I watched Star Trek" could be the full title of either Star Trek (the 1966 TV show) or Star Trek (the 2009 film). Fans distinguish the first Star Trek TV series from "ST:TNG" (Star Trek: The Next Generation), "ST:DS9" (Star Trek: Deep Space 9), &c., as "ST:TOS" (The Original Series). ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive.
Delete; see my comment about Guerrillero Heroico. - -sche 22:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Equinox voted to delete this, see his comment in the "Mona Lisa" section. note placed by - -sche(discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Angr voted to "keep as translation targets all that have foreign names distinct from the English names (not counting mere transliterations into other writing systems). That appears to be all of these except Guerrillero Heroico." (see his comment in the Mona Lisa section) note placed by - -sche(discuss) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep, but fix. "Star Trek" is frequently used as an adjective to denote sleek technology and futuristic concepts:
2012, David M. Darst, The Little Book that Still Saves Your Assets: What The Rich Continue to Do to Stay Wealthy in Up and Down Markets, page 170:
Such portfolios lie on the so-called efficient frontier, which sounds very Star Trek, and is shown in Exhibit 12.2.
2012, D. Crawford, Nirvana in the Garden of Eden: The Quantum Leap and Evolution Of 2012, page 285:
Reality is more Star Trek than people care to admit.
Keep the entry but Delete the noun senses. Replace this with adjectival entry per BD2412. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
My delete votes were for the current entries, of course. Saying "keep" when you want a totally different sense or part of speech is misleading. Not sure if this is an adjective, anyway: sure, "very Star Trek", but you could say an actress was "very Monroe". Equinox◑ 23:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
My delete vote was for the current, nominated entry. Saying "keep" when you really want a totally different sense is misleading. (Anyhow, is it really an adj? "More Star Trek"? "Very Star Trek"? Not sure.) Equinox◑ 23:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Let me clarify my vote then. I mean to keep the noun sense for the same reason that we have a noun sense for Thomas Jefferson at Jefferson, to support derivations like Jeffersonian, but adjust that definition to reflect the qualities for which the term is used as an adjective (i.e., futuristic, sleek technology). Fans will tell you that although Star Trek and Star Wars both feature high tech settings, Star Trek tends to have a cleaner, sleeker, and more regimented look and feel, while Star Wars tends to have a rougher and more guttural look and feel. By the way, I would merge the two adjective senses that have just been added, as I think they are redundant. bd2412T 00:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to edit those adjective senses however you think appropriate; they're a first attempt. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and combined them. The whole notion is futuristic in the manner of Star Trek. For example, a forum post on this page: "I admit that the iPad is very Star Trek but as the saying goes, jack of all trades, master of none". bd2412T 02:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Sure, though in that case I take it to mean the iPad is very "like the handheld PADDs crewmembers use on Star Trek: The Next Generation". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)