That was a reasonable decision. I commend you for comprehending the details of the situation, and deciding on a particular course of action rather than allowing things to drift into an annoying state governed solely by historical precedent (i.e., “Well that’s not the best way to do things, but it’s how we did it last time.”).
At the same time I must appreciate the situation @el_hannos finds himself in. This is a fairly common part, although some of us have been embarrassed because it comes in several, quite similar, sizes. Is there a reasonable way to include at least a generic representation in the standard libraries? Perhaps it would include a text disclaimer on the Courtyard layer, warning the user that the footprint is not optimum, and should be customized for the particular part being used.
As @paulvdh pointed out, the footprint itself isn’t difficult if you remember to include acreage around it for connecting and disconnecting the terminal. For many of us, creating a 3-D mechanical model is a much larger obstacle. (Thank you, @jos , for the contributions!) By placing a generic representation into the KiCAD libraries, users would have a more complete starting point for creating parts in custom libraries.