It seems ashame that a word coined to emphasize a certain philosophy, created to differentiate from the staus quo, has taken on such an over-reaching, all-encompassing definition. Minimalism is the opposite of Maximizism (if there is such a word). It doesn't means "No or Little Earthwork". It alludes to "as little as possible or necessary". In some instances this may mean alot.
In a real world example, I once had to raise a par 5 fairway 4' to get it out of a floodplain. Since 3.5' would have allowed it to flood, 4' was about the minimum. granted, this not only took about 25,000 cy but the topsoil had to be stripped and replaced and that 25k had to come from someplace nearby. When finished, it wasn't evident that any work had been done (since the outside of the hole was a hillside that we were able to tie into to).
This is where I think terms and definitions get skewed. With 25k cy, I could have done all sorts of things -gradewise, but all we did was replicate the existing topo 4' higher. This, while by definition, was minimalist, it was actually Naturalistic, or something that emulates the existing natural setting. I feel that many confuse the terms or interchange them. To attempt to quantify a style based upon an amount of dirt moved is folly. It should be the resultant of the earthwork that should determine what school it fits in.
To put it another way, if I were to raise a 140 ac course by just 1', I would expend about a quarter of a million cubic yards of material, but the end result would be no visable difference in the site. How would you classify this? Minimalist? Naturalsitic? What if there was rock or a high water table and it was raised 3' (750,000 cy)? What if I only took 125,000 cy, didn't touch the fairways or greensites but built containment mounding along each fairway and around all the greens?