Are we okay with questions for which the only correct answer is an extensive list of objects meeting specific conditions?

Question

The question How do the Olympics influence a sport's world rankings? asks for the effect of Olympic results on the athlete or team's general world ranking.

It identifies 36 sports for which there is claimed to be an effect, based on preliminary research, and 9 where there apparently is not.

The final note in the question states

Please note that this can be extended to Winter Olympics and updated when new sports arrive or leave the Olympics

I have pre-emptively closed the question as requiring more focus; 36 sports plus as many as the Winter Olympics and future Summer Games add is a significant number.

However, we have well-received questions of a similar nature. The best example may be The longest Olympic winning streak for a nation is +10/-0 = +10 with 8K views. It is also regarding Olympics, provides specific criteria, and requires an extensive list to answer, which may itself require ongoing updates

I see a number of both positive and negative aspects to such a question and its answers. Is this a (type of) question we want to continue receiving and continue answering, and if so, what requirements might we now wish to place on them?

Answer 1

Strictly, the winning streak question doesn't require an extensive list to answer. It could have just the USA pole vault answer and be absolutely correct and answer the question. As it so happens, we have an answer which goes above and beyond that but that isn't necessary to answer the question.

To me, that's the difference and anything which requires 36 independent pieces of research to answer the question is absolutely in the realm of "needs more focus"; I would have closed it myself except that I'm travelling and wanted to write a bit more than just hitting the button.