I do agree with Jan and whatever-his-current-name-is formerly known as Ina. I would like to take the opportunity to point out a few things that would maybe help in the future to avoid closures.
In general there is no trend that questions are getting closed more often during the last year. To me it actually appears that the opposite is the case (within the last four months). That set aside I have noticed a couple of times that questions are getting closed as duplicates, because the answer in a linked question addresses that to a certain point. That should not be done and I am quite often using my mod vote to overrule such decisions.
In any case, I am thankful that you are presenting this case in such a detailed fashion, for everyone to clearly follow. I find it very important to communicate about such concerns and to make the community find a common stance. You may have seen that these are all gradual processes as the community changes. And since everyone has an equal vote, everyone should participate and of course heard. You can also see that you sparked a new experiment, initiated by Ina, which will hopefully be a good experience for everybody. So thanks again for caring about this site and the community.
Now for a bit more techincal stuff:
Closevoting is part of why this site functions very efficiently and keeps this site clean of an overwhelming number of repetitive questions that eventually do not help many. I would like to remind everyone, that a closed question can be reopened, which when done often leads to a more concise and better understandable question in the first place.
Another thing I would like to point out is, that a long comment thread below the question is often a sign that the question can be improved simply by including the briefest and most relevant information that was obtained through this process in the original post. After that comments can be cleared and one is right at the answers.
Now a bit more closer to your questions. None of them were closed unanimously, so obviously we are in somewhat uncharted territory, which is one reason why we wanted to change the close policies to offer more guidance on that part. However it also means that there have been some of us thinking that the questions are not up to our selfimposed standards.
This is a bit unfortunate, but it happens, and our site is not fault proof. As of now less than 10% of your questions have been closed (and/or deleted), and I believe that is not a big number. I am positive that some of them can easily be salvaged.
You have asked her in the comments:
If my search didn't take me anywhere I don't see why I should mention it.
The answer to that is pretty simple: To not show you stuff, that did not help you in the first place, to prevent others to look in dead ends, to shorten the sorting process of those willing to answer, to understand your general thought process. There is always a chance that you have done the research thoroughly and just missed a detail that would have been essential to grasp the whole picture.
Anyway. Here are a few thought on the questions itself.
- Diamagnetic and paramagnetic ring current
I have addressed the duplicate issue earlier. Here I just reopened the question. I don't think that there was any resemblance of the questions apart from the title.
Picking a descriptive title makes it easier to understand what your main focus is. In that case it was just a placeholder - pretty meaningless. (Apart from this there was a somewhat crucial typo, which I hope to have corrected.) I edited the title to give more focus, and to clearly distinguish it from the other question: Why does diamagnetic current induce a downfield while the paramagnetic current induces an upfield shift?
- Still-Gennari reaction stereoselectivity
I can see why this question was closed - even though I see that this is not just a trivial homework exercise.
You have reasoned, that you provided you insight in the comments. As I stated above, that is not really the right place to do it. I have no included your comment into the question, and if it would have been presented like this in the first place, I doubt it would have been closed. You obviously did think about it, why not share it? (Because this question is a bit old, it might need a reopen vote to get things rolling.)
Btw. This question was first dequeued, then closed. (timeline) The final close vote was your own. (How is that even possible?)
- Generation of singlet oxygen by irradiation
Well, that one was reopened quickly. One of the questions that should not have been closed. Even though I would need to do my own research to start to even understand the question. This one is not really making it easy to see where you are coming from. I also have no idea what rose bengal is.
- Quadrupole moment of a molecule
Apart from being quite general and a non-descriptive title I see nothing wrong with this question and it probably shouldn't have been closed.
However, if the first comment is the link to a wikipedia page (that you already read), it's already a sign that this question will not be very well-received. Just don't send us down the path you have already walked and found insufficient.
If you think the decision of the community is incorrect, then use a reopen vote on it or edit instead of commenting. (Editing dequeues, too, if not closed.) As a community we are diverse and we make mistakes. Nothing is set in stone, it just needs a little more communication.