In the question Why is UHF so much more popular than other frequencies for radio? the problem was supposed to be solved by applying basic physics, even though it was inspired by electrical engineering. I don't understand why the question was closed. What are the exact boundaries of engineering on Physics SE?
The question is around the borderline between physics and engineering. I didn't vote to close, but neither am I dismayed it got closed.
If you revisit your answer you'll find it does not address any basic physics. You make points like:
a smaller antenna is able to transmit/receive the signals due to the low wavelength of such waves
operating using high frequency supports a greater bandwidth as compared to the low frequency operation
the noise levels are much reduced in this domain as compared to the other
all of which are perfectly true and good answers. However you don't explain the physical principles behind the three points. This type of answer is symptomatic of a question that is engineering rather than physics. Explaining the fundamental reasons for how the voltage induced in an aerial is related to the geometry and wavelength, why bandwidth can be increased at high frequencies and why noise levels are lower would expand the answer into an essay, so you are forced to give a general answer that will not satisfy any research physicists.
There is a broader issue of where the focus of this site should be, though whether this is the venue to debate the issue is questionable. The fact is that most of the prolific answerers are professional (ex-professional in my case) scientists whose interest is in fundamentals of physics.
Right now we are experiencing a flood of general and poor quality questions and the site is perceptibly moving away from the vision of an authoritative source of information on physics. On my own part this makes me less tolerant of questions that are very general, show little attempt at research or are poorly thought through. I can't speak for the other site members but I suspect my views are not unique.