I don't think this is a good idea. While there are definitely a couple of questions here and there that may fit your intention, the problem is that many fine questions might seem too trivial only to people who are unable to think of an interesting answer. I can easily see this being frequently misused.
Instead, perhaps a too constrained close reason would be clearer, and it would cover your examples without as much possibility for misuse.
The requirements of this challenge are too constrained. For this type of challenge, the rules as stated severely limit the possibilities for potential answers. Requirements of this nature tend to reduce answers to versions of the same algorithm differing only in language.
Even that, I dislike, although I would still find it acceptable. Really, though, there are three very general question types relevant here:
- Challenges that work really well.
- Challenges that are questionable, leading to debates in comments and on meta.
- Challenges that are obviously very poor.
The first is not an issue. The third is already taken care of with close votes. It's the second that we seem to be concerned with here. However, in reality, it's OK if a few of these stick around on the site for a while. If you see a questionable challenge like this, and you think it is a poor challenge, down vote it. Let the down votes do the speaking for borderline questions.