Now first of all, that close reason is much more about details and effort than about mere answerability. So no, an answer alone does not absolve a bad identification question from closability right away, especially when the existance of an answer usually keeps the question from improving ever. So yes, that question likely should stay closed, or at least should not be reopened solely for the reason that it has an answer.

However, I agree that the word "answerable" might not be the best choice in this case. But finding another fitting word isn't that easy either. "Verifyable" might be an option, but it might as well fall into the same pitfalls that "answerable" does.

But seeing how the actual close-reason is significantly softer than what "answerable" might imply, one could as well go into the direction that Richard's answer does and use a softer term as well. I'd thus support the idea of "does not meet the site's standards" as proposed by Richard, which properly adapted to the format of all the existing close-reasons would read:

Identification questions must contain sufficient detail to meet the site's quality standards and should not be about a commercial or music video. For help writing a good identification question, see: Identify-This-X Questions.

Now first of all, that close reason is much more about details and effort than about mere answerability. So no, an answer alone does not absolve a bad identification question from closability right away, especially when the existance of an answer usually keeps the question from improving ever. So yes, that question likely should stay closed, or at least should not be reopened solely for the reason that it has an answer.

However, I agree that the word "answerable" might not be the best choice in this case. But finding another fitting word isn't that easy either. "Verifyable" might be an option, but it might as well fall into the same pitfalls that "answerable" does.

But seeing how the actual close-reason is significantly softer than what "answerable" might imply, one could as well go into the direction that Richard's answer does and use a softer term as well. I'd thus support the idea of "does not meet the site's standards" as proposed by Richard, which properly adapted to the format of all the existing close-reasons would read:

Identification questions must contain sufficient detail to meet the site's quality standards and should not be about a commercial or music video. For help writing a good identification question, see: Identify-This-X Questions.

Now first of all, that close reason is much more about details and effort than about mere answerability. So no, an answer alone does not absolve a bad identification question from closability right away, especially when the existance of an answer usually keeps the question from improving ever. So yes, that question likely should stay closed, or at least should not be reopened solely for the reason that it has an answer.

However, I agree that the word "answerable" might not be the best choice in this case. But finding another fitting word isn't that easy either. "Verifyable" might be an option, but it might as well fall into the same pitfalls that "answerable" does.

But seeing how the actual close-reason is significantly softer than what "answerable" might imply, one could as well go into the direction that Richard's answer does and use a softer term as well. I'd thus opt for the idea of "does not meet the site's standards" as proposed by Richard, but in order to adapt it better to the existing format for close-reasons employed on the site, I'd eschew from the specific wording of "this question", which is always implied anyway, but orient towards a description of the question category itself, as all the other close-reasons do:

Identification questions must contain sufficient detail to meet the site's quality standards and should not be about a commercial or music video. For help writing a good identification question, see: Identify-This-X Questions.

Now first of all, that close reason is much more about details and effort than about mere answerability. So no, an answer alone does not absolve a bad identification question from closability right away, especially when the existance of an answer usually keeps the question from improving ever. So yes, that question likely should stay closed, or at least should not be reopened solely for the reason that it has an answer.

However, I agree that the word "answerable" might not be the best choice in this case. But finding another fitting word isn't that easy either. "Verifyable" might be an option, but it might as well fall into the same pitfalls that "answerable" does.

But seeing how the actual close-reason is significantly softer than what "answerable" might imply, one could as well go into the direction that Richard's answer does and use a softer term as well. I'd thus support the idea of "does not meet the site's standards" as proposed by Richard, which properly adapted to the format of all the existing close-reasons would read:

Identification questions must contain sufficient detail to meet the site's quality standards and should not be about a commercial or music video. For help writing a good identification question, see: Identify-This-X Questions.