Disclaimer: I did not give closing or reopening votes for the surface area of the chicken question.
I have to say that this is one of the few times I completely disagree with Emilio Pisanty's opinion, usually so wise and equilibrate.
Let's forget the funny context the question has been asked. The real problem is how to estimate the surface area of the irregular body of a physical object. Why on the earth this is not a problem of physics? I think that everybody knows that questions like "what kind of geometry is the most suitable to describe the physical world" are considered genuine questions of physics at least since the time Gauss tried to measure the sum of the inner angles of a triangle characterized by the positions of the tops of three mountains.
More recently, identification through measurements of the fractal character of a few physical structures has been considered well inside the perimeter of physics. And in many cases, computer simulation in condensed matter faces the problem of estimating, at the molecular level, the surface area of confining walls. Again a problem tackled as a typical physical problem.
Therefore, reasonable arguments against this question should motivate why the problem should not be considered a problem with an answer based on physics. Just saying that ideal surfaces and theory of measurement are mathematical topics is not enough. A real chicken does not live in a Hilbert space and does not eat accumulation points :-)
Also, the argument raised by BioPhysicist seems to be quite weak. Why there should not be a definitive answer? However, his point of view opens a different, more fundamental question: how many questions in physics do have an unambiguous definite answer? It is a big question, but for the purpose of the present discussion, I would say that if we use this argument for the present question, we should close hundreds of existing Q&A on PSE.
After exchanging a few comments, I think I should update my answer, at least to clarify my point of view.
My answer above was mainly focused on the original claim at the beginning of Emilio's answer stressing that the question was not on Physics.
As I said, I did not give a vote on this question. Let me add that I see some elements of weakness in the way it was formulated.
However, my criticisms of the question are based on reasons different from Emilio's concern about its being not about physics. The only real problem with this question is that the requested level of accuracy for the surface area estimate was not clearly indicated. This is probably a signal that, independently on the way the question was formulated, the author was not really interested in having a serious answer. In this respect, I would tend to agree with BioPhysicist's point of view that relevance to physics is a red herring, although the reason I would give for closing would be completely different.
However, if some positive conclusion could come from this exchange of point of views, I think it has made explicit a broad range of opinions about the way to apply site policy. In my opinion this should be taken as a signal either that site policy should be stated more clearly, or (not an exclusive or) that this site policy should be better adapted to the present community. But this is something which should deserve a specific discussion, without distractions like the misterious reason one would need to build an armor for chicken.