My question is in relation to close votes on the recent question: What created the universe? The question presently has three close votes on the basis that it is "primarily opinion-based". At the moment it has two answers, but it might end up being closed.
There is some existing discussion in the comments (initiated by me) where users discuss whether the scope of the question is proper for this site. If I understand correctly, users seem to believe that this question is "opinion-based" because it is a broad question, and there are different answers that one could give. User Conifold explains that "We are taking questions that (ideally) have a single answer based on published philosophical literature."
This strikes me as a strange position for a philosophy Q&A site. The most important questions of philosophy are broad in nature, and for any fundamental question of philosophy (in metaphysics, epistemology, etc.) there are many different schools-of-thought, and so there are many conflicting answers that can be given to a single question. Asking "what created the universe" is a basic metaphysical question that is squarely in the domain of philosophy. It is possible to give answers to this question based on different philosophical positions enunciated by different schools-of-thought. This multiplicity of answers does not mean that metaphysics is merely "opinion".
It strikes me that if this basic question of metaphysics is "primarily opinion-based" then so is every broad question in philosophy. (This seems to be an implicit acceptance of subjectivism; everything is just a matter of opinion.) There are many other philosophy questions that are at about the same level of "broadness" that have, quite correctly, not attracted close-votes (see e.g., Why must everything have an origin but not an ending?, Morality is subjective?, Why does all of existence take place through my subjective point of view?, Does all matter exist forever?). It is my view that all such questions are legitimate, and can attract helpful answers. But do others disagree? Should broad philosophical questions be closed as "primarily opinion-based"?