This is about the question Which is more feasible: Wormholes or an Alcubierre Drive?, which was closed by community vote as "primarily opinion-based".
I honestly fail to see what's primarily opinion-based about it. To my mind, it's definitely not any more opinion-based than many other questions on the site, and one can make a quite reasonable argument that it is less so than many, even recent ones, which remain open.
Both hypotheses being asked about, while to my knowledge neither has been proven, have a somewhat solid foundation in the sciences. Both are studied and considered by some pretty smart people, so there should be citable material available, possibly even to the level of hard-science (which this question is not). The fact that neither is currently practical doesn't mean that no work has been done to establish how they might function. Science often works by determining the theoretical model long before practical experiments are made or even possible; it also often works by trying to figure out how newly observed data can fit with existing observations in a new model. There is no inherent contradiction in doing one before the other.
The OP specifically specifies "with our current knowledge" and also allows for answers saying that the comparison isn't meaningful by also adding at the end "Is it possible to make this type of comparison? If not, why?".
We have already established that "that's not possible" can be an acceptable answer, and even more with reality-check questions (the tag wiki excerpt there even says "Answers should say yes or no, with supporting info.").
"Primarily opinion-based" is about not being able to objectively evaluate answers. I'm not a subject matter expert, but I feel that answers to this question can be judged objectively on how well they answer the question and their factual correctness.
It's not like the OP is asking us to do their work for them. They've come up with two ideas based on relevant scientific study and are basically asking which is the least scientifically implausible, so the problem with "do my work for me" types of questions doesn't really seem to apply. Take Secespitus' answer to another Meta question from back in July:
We will always be a bit opinion-based, but questions should still be written in a way that you can use somewhat objective methods to determine which answer is the "best" answer in the proposed scenario.
Answers can discuss the difficulties of each proposed mechanic, and compare the implications of them; or argue, citing supporting reasoning, that the comparison isn't meaningful.
Or consider SRM's answer to another question from back in January, which seems to me to provide a reasonable, certainly a "rule of thumb", guideline for when primarily opinion-based applies:
I think I have a litmus test for what constitutes a "primarily opinion-based" question.
Ask yourself: "What would a wrong answer to this question be?"
A wrong answer to the OP's question could for example be "Alcubierre drive requires blue cheese, so it's useless after you pass Earth's moon". (Made up example, but you get the idea.) A correct answer could be "both require X which we have absolutely no idea how to do, so neither is more plausible than the other", or "option A requires X, and option B requires Y, and we don't know how to do X but we have a theoretical model for how to do Y, so B is more plausible".
I don't think the question linked at the top of this meta question meets the criteria for primarily opinion-based, but I'm also not inclined to reopen unilaterally by mod hammer. Why was it put on hold as primarily opinion-based?