Question: I asked a question, which I believed was with a very simple answer and then it got on hold as too broad. 
None of the "too-broad" voters actually gave a reason why it would be too broad. And only one of the answers given fits all the clues (the accepted one). I even added two more hints after the first close vote - to make it clearer for the readers, even though the additional hints are not really necessary to solve the riddle.

I am referring to this question: [Question](https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/41095/you-want-it-yet-you-dont-really)

I have read the answer to [this question](https://puzzling.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4523/how-is-this-too-broad), here on Meta, and I believe the situation is similar and the close-voters didn't really think on the riddle.

Answer: 
That is the whole problem with riddles. You might have thought of a certain answer but you will find lots of different answers, many of which will make sense because riddles usually are "think out of the box". 

And looking at your question, if you see the answers, from a neutral perspective, many of the answers make sense. Fame, pokemons(OK, maybe a little too out of the box) are not that bad answers.
> 
> I asked a question, which I believed was with a very simple answer and then it got on hold as too broad. 
> 
> 
> 

The problem is that unless specific clues are given, many different things under the Sun can fit as an answer to a riddle, thus making it a bad one. 

> 
> And only one of the ... I even added two more hints after the first close vote - to make it clearer for the readers, even though the additional hints are not really necessary to solve the riddle. 
> 
> 
> 

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."  **Albert Einstein** ([probably](https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/34599/31063))