As for your substantive proposal, I agree that significant coverage in multiple sources is the GNG standard, but the sources don't have to be presented before an article can be created.  For example, I created 1892 Harvard Crimson football team knowing that significant coverage exists in multiple sources, but for starting purposes I considered it sufficient to have citations to reliable sources such as the Harvard site and CFDW.  Hopefully, another editor will pick up the baton and expand further, but I don't see how or why an article such as 1892 Harvard should be a candidate for deletion when a search of The New York Times archives of newspapers.com turns up a plethora of coverage for the topic. Stubs are not where we end up, but sometimes they serve a useful purpose in getting things started. See WP:ARTN: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. . . . if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability."