Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender euphoria
As Equivamp said, {{tq|Gender dysphoria is a medical topic, so sourcing about it, including about topics that purport to be its counterpart, need to comply with MEDRS.}} In no way is this on "equal conceptual footing" with gender dysphoria (GD). GD is in the DSM-5; this is a vague concept ("not been rigorously defined or operationalized") that has been tossed around now and again in some papers. Regarding the claim that {{tq|McGuire and Morrow (2020) defines and employs the term and qualifies as a review}}, here is the entirety of what they say on it: {{tq|Several major constructs have been identified and investigated as contributors to gender identity, including gender development, body image, gender dysphoria/euphoria, and genderqueer or nonbinary identity....Newer nonbinary measures allow for a full spectrum of identity measurement, assess both dysphoria and comfort in affirmed gender (sometimes called gender euphoria), and meet assumptions of longitudinal measurement, meaning TGD clients can take the same measure multiple times, regardless of where they may be in a transition process 32.}} This is plainly not a secondary source ''giving significant coverage to this topic''; it is a passing mention or a dic-def at best. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09546634.2019.1687823?journalCode=ijdt20 This paper is in a dermatology journal (i.e., not the relevant fields of psychology or psychiatry). Further, this study of respondents to an online questionnaire is not a secondary source in the sense that  requires: {{tq|Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations....Any given primary source may be contradicted by another. The Wikipedia community relies on guidance of expert reviews, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies....primary sources normally contain introductory, background, or review sections that place their research in the context of previous work; these sections may be cited in Wikipedia with care: they are often incomplete and typically less reliable than reviews or other sources, such as textbooks, which are intended to be reasonably comprehensive.}} Oh, and: {{tq|Other indications that a journal article may not be reliable are...its content being outside the journal's normal scope.}} The fact is that this topic lacks the secondary MEDRS sources needed to have an article. As for the idea that we can merge it, well, any such content will have to be removed from the GD article for failing MEDRS (the current text on this concept is cited to ethics and dermatology journals). Then we're left with a redirect not mentioned in the destination. The answer is deletion
— User:Crossroads, 04:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:MEDRS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)