Too broad isn't the best closure reason.
Prior note : By closure reason, I mean the official choice (lacking focus, need details...) and its subsequent explanatory comment. It's because I expect people to choose one official reason -usually the most concerning one- then give explanations that is consistent with this choice.
As a starter, let's dig a doubt with an interesting contradiction I found when looking back at your post.
They [the questions] ultimately suffer the same problem: namely that there are a potentially infinite number of answers.
Yet you say a few lines before :
And the only correct answer is:
You've already required your audience to suspend their disbelief with your handwavium, why do you need science to justify it?
The truth is that broadness is not what distinguishes those questions from the others. More often than not (and as you more or less tell it), the most acceptable answer is "we can't explain it". Closing for being too-broad is therefore a wrong interpretation of the rules, even less in the case of their strict interpretation. Actually, the common trait of these questions is that they attempt to reconcile elements which cannot be put together, generally wild creations and real-world. It's like you cannot blend mustard and chocolate together, in a way.
However and indeed, those questions often lack some forethought, notably to fight back the instinct that more realistic is always better. Strong ties to real-world is only one of the viable intention among many. It looks safer to work with it, but often times having the courage to go mad can give much better results!
So... Presuming the question is showing mismatching intentions and in overall lack good worldbuilding, there are four paths you can take which work much better within the rules. They are also more likely to be applicable than other solutions :
Some better alternatives
Downvoting the question
It's very simple: Someone offered something impossible and it seems they thought too quickly about what they want. They would also probably made a failed attempt at good worldbuilding in general. Thus, as stated by the downvote description :
This question does not show any research effort. It is unclear or not useful.
It can therefore be freely downvoted. Still, note that the point at which you will actually downvote is very personal; Some will have very strict criteria, others will almost never hit that arrow pointing down.
Answering the question, telling this is impossible
This is also known as a frame-challenge. I actually did this for the space fairy question. The intended goal is to remind in a friendly manner that they're likely trying to perform the impossible, and that this might hurt them in the long term.
To remind an old post, frame-challenge as answers should take on at least partially the question or the intent behind it, you mustn't just throw away the idea like some trash in a can. Offer alternatives, give inspiration for something new. If you can't give such thing, It's better told in comments to make it less official and more convivial. Ah and remember : it's perfectly alright for a question to have no answer if no answer can be found : The absence of viable answers is an answer of some sort.
Closing the question for being opinion-based
This one will surely stir reactions : Why would it be opinion-based? Let's first define some common grounds for when opinion-based closure should happen :
- When people are deliberately asking for opinions, or when they just want to engage a discussion (source.
- A common reason is when there is no way to scale answers appropriately. In other words, that there are no objectively better answers than others1.
With that in hand, let's look at the question : If it is impossible to answer (can't match real-world and hand-waved elements), it means that the premises prevent it. You'd therefore need to change the world and question premises to not reach absurd conclusions. But the issue is : Which one to remove?!
This very question's answer is heavily subject to the querent's personal choice as they should know best what they wish to do. In other words, the question is dependent on one's opinion, and is thus opinion-based by both lack of better answers and (more or less deliberate) asking for opinions.
Personally, I only do this when there are critical components at play. For instance, "How can I realistically kill my immortal character?" is a logical contradiction in and of itself : If "kill" and "immortal" are using the common definition, we'd have to remove one of the premise to start answering. Alas, we can't tell whether it's best the character is killed or be unkillable. Any answer's quality will be therefore inherent to what the readers/querent actually want to conserve than more objective conditions.
Closing the question for lacking details
When facing impossibilities, it happens sometimes that the querent just didn't explain enough what they want exactly. If someone asks how to explain vampires can only be killed by wooden stakes, it could be that they do not want to know how they cannot be killed by other means (guns, rocket launchers...), but how they are especially vulnerable to wood. The first is barely answerable in regard to known sciences, but the latter makes more sense and is more likely to display better worldbuilding intents. Sometimes, some clarification is all you need for a change of perspective and make the question more answerable.
1 : There must be a post stating it explicitly somewhere, but I can't find it back. In any case this is a recurrent comment you can find on closed for being opinion-based questions.