Proposed resolution:

This wording is relative to N4830.

1. Modify [range.subrange] as indicated:

   namespace std::ranges {
   […]
     template<class T, class U, class V>
       concept pair-like-convertible-to = // exposition only
         !range<T> && pair-like<remove_reference_t<T>> &&
         requires(T&& t) {
           { get<0>(std::forward<T>(t)) } -> convertible_to<U>;
           { get<1>(std::forward<T>(t)) } -> convertible_to<V>;
         };
   […]
     template<input_or_output_iterator I, sentinel_for<I> S = I, subrange_kind K =
              sized_sentinel_for<S, I> ? subrange_kind::sized : subrange_kind::unsized>
       requires (K == subrange_kind::sized || !sized_sentinel_for<S, I>)
     class subrange : public view_interface<subrange<I, S, K>> {
     private:
       […]
     public:
       […]
       template<not-same-as<subrange> PairLike>
         requires pair-like-convertible-to<PairLike, I, S>
       constexpr subrange(PairLike&& r) requires (!StoreSize)
         : subrange{std::get<0>(std::forward<PairLike>(r)),
                    std::get<1>(std::forward<PairLike>(r))}
       {}
       template<pair-like-convertible-to<I, S> PairLike>
       constexpr subrange(PairLike&& r, make-unsigned-like-t(iter_difference_t<I>) n)
         requires (K == subrange_kind::sized)
         : subrange{std::get<0>(std::forward<PairLike>(r)),
                    std::get<1>(std::forward<PairLike>(r)), n}
       {}
     […]
     };
   […]
   }
   

[ 2019-11 Status to Ready after LWG discussion Friday in Belfast. ]

[ 2019-10 Priority set to 1 and status to LEWG after reflector discussion ]

Just because a pair is holding two iterators, it doesn't mean those two iterators denote a valid range. Implicitly converting such pair-like types to a subrange is dangerous and should be disallowed.

Suggested priority P1.

Implementation experience: range-v3's subrange lacks these constructors.