Talk:Candid (organization)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

COI Declaration

The subject of this article has hired me to address the lack of citations. If any potential points of contention arise, I will raise them here before proceeding with edits. I'll also discuss banner removal here before doing it myself. MatthewBurton (talk) 02:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced banner

I've added citations for the current content and have removed content for which I could not find sources. I suggest the Unreferenced banner be removed. MatthewBurton (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a puff piece

Article is full of positive spin like "In November, GuideStar’s position as a leading source of nonprofit information was reinforced!". Have tagged with maintenance template "advertisement", and if it's not "advertisement", it's definitely tone. -- 2A02:C7F:AC12:8C00:4872:FDFB:8655:4432 (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Foundation Center into Candid (organization)

they merged together. Currently the existing articles are both full of promotional puffery garbage. After we eliminate the promotional puff, that would condense down the contents quite a bit and they should be reasonably sized after all is combined together. Graywalls (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merging sounds good, I also think they would work as separate articles -- looking back at WP:MERGEREASON and WP:NOTMERGE I think this is really one of those borderline cases where merging the articles as they are now would be fine, and if folks decide to expand the content out in a bit they could be split later, but it doesn't really matter in a general sense if they act as one article or two (or three), as they're not strictly duplicate or even overlapping topics. If you want to execute a merge, go ahead. - - mathmitch7 ^{(talk/contribs)}
Merging is premature. There are two separate organizations with long histories which did many things, and now they are merged into another. If the corporations were originally notable, then they still are notable, and the merge would not change that. However, if you say there is a lot of promotional garbage to remove, then do that, and after removing that check notability again. If re-assessment determines that the organizations never were notable, then consider the merge. Currently I think what has happened is an assessment that Foundation Center merged into Guidestar, then Guidestar renamed to "Candid". Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Foundation Center into this, or rename this back to "Guidestar". As things stand it's a mess. Guidestar is better known than Foundation Center, at least in some circles, but now is hidden under the least known "Candid" name. Very asymmetric for a supposedly common organization. The description of the merger is off in the FC article, not in the resulting organization article. Looks like puffery has been trimmed out of this article but not the FC one. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I note the comments on puffery above, but my view is that the former Foundation article was written in prose rather than as a list. That's a stylistic difference, but not necessarily a problem. Klbrain (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]