Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/England v Germany (2000)
The relevant guideline is , which basically requires significant lasting impact and coverage. Keegan's resignation is one example of impact. Another is http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/may/25/football.markhonigsbaum this - silly, perhaps, but still relevant. As for lasting coverage: although you wouldn't know it from the current article, there's no shortage. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-444078/Goal-got-idol-Kev-axe.html this, http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/42684.html this, http://www.givemefootball.com/premier-league/on-this-day-in-history-october-7 this, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1065432/Davies-Keegan-I-told-stay-toilet--I-tell-FA-bosses-coach-just-quit.html this and http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/6708723.stm this, all offering significant coverage and all written several years after the game. With these taken into account, the case for deletion is limited
— User:Alzarian16, 16:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:EVENT (Wikipedia:Notability)