Deletion of Retroactive nomenclature

Comment: This is a bit tricky. As the nominator notes, the phenomenon definitely exists (the example that immediately springs to mind for me is Octavius/Octavian/Augustus) and I agree with the comment above in that I think it is most likely notable, even if this term might not be used. The lack of use of this specific term of course makes it difficult to search for sources. Of course, otability depends on the ''existence'' of sources and not whether they are actually cited in the article per EXIST, and I'm inclined to give this article the benefit of the doubt in this regard (because I too {{tq|feel like I have come across discussion on this}}, though I cannot recall exactly when or where). I don't think this qualifies under #6 as a neologism, because the article is about the ''concept'' as opposed to the ''term''. It might however qualify under #7 ({{tq|Articles for which thorough attempts to find Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources to Wikipedia:Verifiability|verify them have failed}}). Even then, I am tempted to go with an  keep, because I honestly think that the existence of this article improves Wikipedia (even in its current, unsourced state). It might be appropriate to change the title, but I have no suggestion as to what the new title should be in that case
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NEXIST||WP:DELREASON||WP:DELREASON||WP:IAR)

Comment: This is an essay with valid sources for each individual cited case, but no source which covers the topic in a general way. While the phenomenon certainly exists, no source has been presented that support its , and the ''non''-prevalence of the term "retroactive nomenclature" already has been shown. So it is genuine OR. Changing the page title won't change this, only reliable sources could do so
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (Wikipedia:Notability)