You can call it whatever you want, but your defense for why it must contain at least two rides was that no land contains only one ride (which isn't even true; see Zootopia, some Adventure World lands, etc.), so the semantics were relevant.
It's become two completely different topics, though, and when I was asking for an example of a land with a single attraction, I was genuinely curious, as I couldn't think of one in the US. I'm not really familiar with overseas parks, except DL Paris, which I just went to in the fall. I didn't bother going to the studios park, since it was mostly closed in preparation for the reimagining into AW, and I haven't really followed what's going on there. I do think that's a different market than what's in the US, though, and I was genuinely not thinking of overseas parks, but I'll happily take that info into account.
I'm not against being proven wrong on the single attraction precedent, as I already discovered an example of a similar mini land with a single attraction, myself, and that was The Muppets Courtyard. I also find it to be a noteworthy example of how NOT to do a modern mini land, and if there was a 2nd attraction there, with more overall theming, I kind of doubt that the area would even be changing to Monsters Inc.
That said, I still believe that comparing the cutbacks of previous CEOs (especially with Chapeck) to the current CEO, to be not really standing on solid ground. I see no reason at this moment, that they would indeed cut the 2nd attraction at a
land [land-sized are within a land] in a US park, and implying that this is likely because of how another CEO from the past squandered their resources for the bottom line.