Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golf simulator

Golf simulator

Golf simulator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This formal merge proposal was incorrectly opened on the article's talk page. Following the March 2026 RfC, formal merge discussions are now held at AfD rather than the historical Proposed article mergers process (PAM). I've moved the discussion accordingly per WP:TPO.

Moved from Talk:Driving range § Merger of Golf simulator

 – FaviFake (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Merge into Driving range

I propose merging Golf simulator, into this article. The simulator article doesn't have many references for the majority of it's content. Furthermore, it appears article is mostly referencing the modern simulator. It being a form of golf practice that seemed to emerge as an alternative from a driving range.

Any encyclopedic content that page has could be moved to a dedicated section in this page for the modern simulator. Issac I Navarro (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• I also wanted to point out that

On 21 March 2026, it was proposed that this page be moved from Indoor golf to Golf simulator. The result of the discussion was moved.

has been moved to golf simulator, relevant content from that move should also be placed in its own section on the driving range article.Issac I Navarro (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge per nominator's rationale. It is indeed scarcely sourced. FaviFake (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Golf, and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. These are really different entities although they may be co-located sometimes. Tewapack (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The golf simulator, page has hardly any sources. The current pages reads more like a dictionary entry then an encyclopedic article. Per WP:NOTDICT. Also Wikipedia is WP:NOTGUIDE, the simulator article, currently appears to be more in that realm. Issac I Navarro (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. The topic is distinct from driving range, and it qualifies for GNG. I don't see any good reason why it should be merged. Shocksingularity (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Shocksingularity, The current page lacks many citations and is written more like a WP:NOTGUIDE on how the simulators are used rather then an encyclopedic entry. Much of the simulator article could be trimed; as it consists of unsourced descriptions of features, components, among many other non encyclopedic details.

Additionally, golf simulators are ultimately a form of golf practice. From the available sources I was able to find, driving ranges are a rather new form of golf practice; only dating to the 1920s. While, indoor golf hitting areas seemed to have emerged around this time, as an indoor alternative. Thus, the simulator screen was the next technological advancement.

That being said, the technology itself could be distinct, however, the current content on the page doesn't seem to justifies a standalone article. Any reliably sourced content on that page, (if any,) that has an encyclopedic merit, could be incorporated into a section that shows the different types of practice facilities and their counter parts.

As the other common golf practice facilities that are often found with driving ranges are: sand bunkers, putting greens, and chipping greens. Range simulators are the alternative to the driving range. Much like how portable putting greens, are to practice green. Issac I Navarro (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't see how this article is a guide. Yes, it explains how the simulators work, but the explanation is moreso how the technology functions rather than how someone would use the technology. I actually think that section is written fine, although it needs more citations and shouldn't make up 90% of the article.

I agree that the article is not the best, and could be improved. But that's not grounds for deletion. The topic is notable; the article should be kept. Shocksingularity (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Shocksingularity, I agree that the subject is noteworthy. However, it doesn't seem to warrant it's own page due to a few issues and its lack of references.

That being said, my rational comes from how I would of approached this page by doing the historic merge proposal. I wasn't aware of the March 2026 RfC, that made formal merge discussions to be held at AfD. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I don't think WP:DEL-REASON would apply, because the intention is to merge the page, not delete it. Issac I Navarro (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems distinct enough for its own page. Is widespread all around the world. The problem with unsourced information can be solved editorially. Geschichte (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge as per rationale as it has sufficient sources.Farhanansari1994 (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.