Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco-Réunionnais


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was   delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Franco-Réunionnais

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

People from Réunion are French, because Réunion is France. Furthermore, it has always been French, except for five years in 1810-1815, when it was seized by the British. And there were no indigenous tribes before the French settlement. This is why talking about Franco-Réunionnais does not make any sense at all. Of course, there are people from non-French origin on the island, and the term franco-réunionnais may be found on Google. But it has never been used for an ethnic group. Maurice45, who created the page and is of Mauritian descent, probably thought that the ethnic division was the same as in neighbouring Mauritius, where Franco-Mauritian is indeed in use, which appears normal as Mauritius is no more French for two centuries. Many contributors told him about the problem on Talk:Franco-Réunionnais, Talk:Indo-Réunionnais and Talk:Réunion. Yet, he continues to maintain he is right. The fact is none of his references documents the use of Franco-Réunionnais. And ethnic statistics being illegal in France, the references saying Réunionnais from French descent form about one quarter of the population are necessarily mistaken. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 13:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 13:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This makes no sense whatsoever. It's like saying American-Pennsylvanian.  Delete.  Neologism and original research. Drawn Some (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Keep No more add than having a US-Guam article, or a US-Puerta Rico article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The comparison with Puerto Rico and Guam is not relevant, since Réunion does not belong to France. Réunion is France, as French as Paris is. Thus, you should only compare with Hawaii. And there would still be a difference, since Réunion was desert when the French settled, making it impossible to think about Réunion without thinking about France. By the way, I still wait to the references that will prove that the term Franco-Réunionnais is used to call an ethnic group there. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom - article is as non-sensical as Franco-Montpellian, or Anglo-Bristolian. The article is essentially unsourced, as none of the references cited mention 'Franco-Reunionnaise', so fails WP:V, and looks like an effort at WP:OR to create it --Saalstin (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; unlike Réunion, Guam and Puerto Rico were not first settled by or always controlled by the country that controls them now. Better American comparisons would be something such as Americo-Bostonian or Drawn Some's idea.  No evidence that this is a significant group.  Nyttend (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the article's confusing title notwithstanding (misnomers due to analogy are hardly a deletion reason), it's quite clear User:Maurice45 intended to focus on ethnicity rather than citizenship, so the proper analogy seems to be to Haole (i.e. whites in Hawaii), rather than "Americo-Bostonian". The white portion of Réunion's population has been the subject of quite a bit of scholarly attention, e.g.


 * On the other hand it may be more straightforward to simply start a new article than try to rewrite this one from scratch to untangle the flawed assumptions it's based on. cab (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Haole isn't a good analogy because there were native Hawaiians. The term Franco-Réunionnais makes no sense whatsoever.  All the people are French regardless of their origins, which are diverse.  The island was uninhabited when the French arrived.  The native people of Hawaii were conquered by the Americans and their Queen deposed.  That book Histoire de Petits-Blancs is not about all the people of French origin, the term means more "poor whites" and it is about a social group of creoles, maybe like the Melungeons or just hillbillies.  There is little in the article that makes any sense.  I agree with cab that if the intent is to write an article about ethnicity in Réunion a fresh start would be better.  This is a  false start. Drawn Some (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "All the people are French regardless of their origins, which are diverse" ... It's reasonably clear to me that User:Maurice45 means to address the topic of the ethnic group called "French", in contrast to Chinese, South Asians, etc. rather than citizens of France. So if we're trying to figure out how to write this article properly, it's rather unproductive to try to frame this discussion as if the intent were to write something equivalent to "American citizens in Pennsylvania". And I'm quite aware of the history of Hawaii, but whether or not an island had a native ethnic group has nothing to do with the main thrust of both Haole and the topic that Maurice45 is trying to address here: the social position of the ethnic group (not the citizens) who are the historical "titular nationality" and majority ethnic group in the rest of their country's territory, in this one corner of the country's territory where's they're a numerical minority but also partially a social elite. cab (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway, the main point I'm trying to make in my excessively verbose way is: a poor choice of title is not a deletion reason when the topic of an article is clear and that topic has been studied by scholars. Titles can be changed --- that's what the move button is for. cab (talk) 04:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Really interesting debate. Newcomers from Metropolitan France are called Zoreilles. This is not exactly an ethnic group, since these newcomers might be from different descents and still be called Zoreilles. Yet, they are often classified as such among other ethnic groups. But the article is really not only about them, but about French or Whites as a whole - which is a very complicated choice. This is why I agree with Drawn Some, that it should be restarted from scratch. This is not the case for Indo-Réunionnais, which I think could be renamed to Malbars and then corrected to delete the reference to Islam - rare among Malbars. I tried to do so, but Maurice45 answered that he wanted to do an article that would stand for all those from Indian descent - Zarabes included. The result is, again, a very strange title. Thierry Caro (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: The Petits Blancs, as strange as it may seem, are as much a social class as an ethnic group, some - like Dominique Aupiais - saying that even Blacks founded this group of impoverished people. They do live in the mountains, and Drawn Some astonished me by guessing that. By the way, we are getting far from the deletion debate.
 * 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.