Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morale hazard

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 redirect to Moral Hazard. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Morale hazard

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

Redundant since we already have Moral hazard. The ambiguous difference between Moral hazard and Morale hazard has been covered there by Moral_hazard#Distinction_from_morale_hazard. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moral Hazard. Hard to tell because both articles are poorly cited, but they seem to be the same thing mainly.BayShrimp (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moral hazard. There really is a distinction between the two terms. Using fire insurance as an example, a person who is willing to commit arson presents the insurer with a moral hazard, whereas a law-abiding person who is simply lackadaisical about fire safety presents a morale hazard. But, I can't recall ever seeing the one discussed without the other, so presenting them together in a single article seems the best approach. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moral hazard as the differences are covered there. -- Dane ^talk 00:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.