Though I appreciated the link, if only because it made me see one of the weirdest things about the current notability guidelines. By relying on multiple independent sources, they essentially establish a higher verifiability threshold for article topics than article content. In other words, nothing whatsoever prevents inclusion of this ski field on a list of NZ ski fields - that's verifiable information. But something now has to be super-verifiable to be an article topic.
What is gained by creating this second class of verifiability? Why do article topics need to be super-verified? Or, more specifically, why is normal, garden-variety verifiability not good enough for article topics? And if it's not good enough for article topics, why is it good enough for your garden variety information?
Regardless of what you call it, it is perfectly obvious that the threshold for including something in an article should be lower than the threshold for giving something its own article. The alternative would result in Wikipedia being a website containing billions is interlinked stubs with nothing else since as soon as anything was deemed worthy of getting added to an article it would be split of into its own article.