Not a definition - it is simply adding a "singular" to an improper definition - if any definition is used, the USDA terminology should be used. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
We document language as actually used (in print, etc.) and not according to legal definitions. By all means RFV it if you don't believe it can be attested. Equinox◑ 13:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, this singular form probably does not meet our Criteria for Inclusion; the term seems to be used only in the plural (which I've just cited). - -sche(discuss) 18:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I just added it as the singular because it is proper grammar, I believe following trimming which is the definition entry and trimmings which has the plural only redirect definition, as per the manual of style here correct me if I am wrong.Lucifer (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It's OK that you added it, it is logical that the singular would exist... it just appears not to exist in durable places, so I've sent it to RFV. - -sche(discuss) 21:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh I never thought it did exist, I am actually in favor or -ings as nouns and plural only terms and "the x" words being added as used so I will just nominate it for deletion.Lucifer (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I've deleted it, because it does not appear to meet CFI, per the discussion above and on WT:RFV (which will be archived to here sooner or later). - -sche(discuss) 01:29, 13 April 2012 (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.
I just cited [[boneless lean beef trimmings]] and [[lean finely textured beef]], but I'm having a hard time finding citations of this singular form. (It looks like I created the singular form, so you may be wondering why I don't just delete it as an "own error", but in fact another editor created the entry as a singular and I moved it to the plural and then recreated the singular as a soft redirect.) - -sche(discuss) 18:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I might not have the right nomenclature in mind, but I suspect that "trimmings" in this context is a collective noun. For instance, when one gets something "with all the trimmings", I've never heard of any case of getting something "with one trimming". -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
You mean something like: I give my dog one good trimming every month.? Also, I gave my dog a few bits of lean beef trimming(s).
Also, doesn't the existence of a cite like the following suggest that this is not a set phrase:
1999, Richard Jack Teweles; Frank Joseph Jones, Ben Warwick, The futures game: who wins? who loses? and why?, page 488:
The recent introduction of two new contracts, 90 percent lean boneless beef and 50 percent lean boneless beef trimming, expand hedging opportunities to grinders and processors.
I don't think that WT:IDIOM can be taken too seriously as I don't think all the claims made on the page can be substantiated. Also some items would make it under multiple criteria, especially the lemming test. DCDuringTALK 21:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally: I'm no fan of content duplication, but I wonder if it might not be more neutral from POV standpoint (NPOV) to have the definition at both pink slime and one of the industry terms — I hope we can at least avoid duplicating the content at pink slime and both industry terms by defining one as a synonym of the other — rather than defining both industry terms as [[pink slime]]. - -sche(discuss) 20:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Follow-up: I have deleted the singular entry, per the talk page. - -sche(discuss) 18:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)