Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender euphoria
It's not a neologism, being attested with the stated meaning since the 1990s https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=p60N-QvxvD8C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q=gender%20euphoria&f=falsehttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gabriele-Griffin/publication/262111824_The_Dispersal_of_the_Lesbian_or_Re-Patriating_the_Lesbian_in_British_Writing/links/56eff55008ae3c6534365e78/The-Dispersal-of-the-Lesbian-or-Re-Patriating-the-Lesbian-in-British-Writing.pdf. I could see a case for a merge-and-redirect, but not deletion. As for the  concern, the https://doi.org/10.1080/09546634.2019.1687823 article whose abstract says that gender euphoria has yet to be {{tq|rigorously defined}} contains, in the text, a brief review of what had been written to date about it. (As MEDRS observes, {{tq|the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says}}.) A review section is naturally not as comprehensive as a review article, but it is enough to indicate that the term is attested and even defined, albeit imprecisely. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anusha-Lachman/publication/340242464_International_Considerations_Variations_in_Practice_An_African_Perspective/links/5eb13992a6fdcc7050a99862/International-Considerations-Variations-in-Practice-An-African-Perspective.pdf#page=42 McGuire and Morrow (2020) defines and employs the term and qualifies as a review. There may only be a limited amount to be said, but we can say something, and the turns of phrase in the current text aren't so bad to start with; hence, merge
— User:XOR, 16:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:MEDRS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)