A question of mine was closed on the grounds of being non-mainstream. Mainstream is defined below:
Mainstream physics is physics which has been accepted by a significant portion of the physics community. In the case of modern physics, if a theory has not been published in a reputable journal, it is not considered mainstream.
This definition having been written in a community answer (87 % Manishearth) to this meta question.
My question asks at what point a black hole would leave Earth uninhabitable in its approach. More specifically, I asked for an upper and lower limit, as the point it would leave Earth uninhabitable would depend on the characteristics of the black hole.
The only criticisms I got in the comments were about how a black hole wouldn't affect the solar system any differently than another object of the same mass. Now this may be true, and I posted a comment displaying willingness to edit my question to be more general if someone posted an answer showing how this is the case (though this was done after the question was closed). I get that an unnecessarily specific question is sub-par, but it is surely not grounds for closing, as it creates opportunity for more learning (they could dismantle any notion that black holes are any scarier than a passing, rogue star or something). Also, I was basing my assumptions that a black hole would decimate us differently than other massive objects on a comment made on an answer (by Fraxinus) to a question of mine on the Astronomy.SE site.
However, I may have misunderstood something, but I don't see how the criticism I received in the comments is of the type you question isn't mainstream. If this is the case, if my question was closed on different grounds than the criticisms in the comments, then I'd like to receive an explanation for this. Basically, more core question is this: How is my question not mainstream? Is it not a fact approved by the mainstream in physics, that a black hole passing through the solar system could leave earth uninhabitable? Or is this idea a crackpot hypothesis? Or is it a component of my question that is non-mainstream, like the part about x-ray radiation?
EDIT: As user rob mentioned in the comments, some users chose "Needs details or clarity" as their close-vote reason. Again though, I don't see how my question is unclear. Given how this wasn't the main reason for their close, it shouldn't be the main question here either, but if anyone wants to answer how my question was unclear as well, that'd be great.