Why was this question closed (and then deleted)?

Question

Since the medium length question was apparently too complex and the short question wasn't apparently clear enough, I will try to rewrite the question about the closing in a more answerable form, motivating my choices. The part about why it was deleted was mostly cleared by Russel McMahon.

Reason to rewrite the question
It appears that on this Meta, when someone asks "why was question X closed with reason Y" all they really want to know is "because three users with N points decided it had to be closed with reason Y". I didn't expect to receive this answer twice (the other is an answer since deleted because I was 'not nice'), considering the information carried by such an answer, in the light of the second screenshot I posted, is basically zero (and I also guess that the tag 'discussion' means something else from what I and my dictionaries think).

Answering "because three users with N points decided to close it" is nothing but a tautology, and if the answer to the most logic (at least in my world, but YMMV) follow-up question "then why three users decided to close it" would be "we don't know, we cannot know, you should ask them", the logic conclusion to draw is that on EESE, simple questions that should be answerable by any electronics practitioner are closed for reason that are imperscrutable to everyone except the users who chose to close them. And that such a arbitrariness and lack of transparency is okay with the top brass here.

The purpose of this question on Meta
What I am asking here is "how is it possible for a question (as elementary as this) to be closed without that it is possible to find a common agreement on why it was closed?" to the point that the only answer I have got so far is basically "it was closed because someone decided to close it". I find this lack of transparency disturbing and contrary to the purpose of aiding users ask better questions.

So, in order to avoid further tautologies, I am forced to analyze the question one step at the time, sentence after sentence. It's short and simple enough to make this possible. This is not some fringe topic that requires experts in the field. Any EE or even any technician should know how a transistor work. Let's see if the community can agree on a reason for closing the question, with the motivation given, as if it were asked today.

Since the original question I had asked in this post wasn't clear enough (except for user @dim, it appears, but their comments are now buried into a deleted answer), I had to split my question in many explicitly worded bits that are - I hope - tautology-proof.

The answers required are mostly in the form of Yes/No, except for the last one.

Consider this an educative post, for new users that are beginners and want to ask good question. Show them why the question was not focused, so that they can learn how to ask focused questions. So far, nobody has given a reason for that. Feel free to contact the original close-voters, if you wish. My question(s) is (are) directed at the community. In the spirit of the community, the answer that better explains why the OP question is not focused and deserving to be closed should come up on top with the most votes.

A word on notations
In the following the original question from the OP is in italics (if I can make it in italics - the buttons no longer works on my laptop and PC, and it is not possible to correctly indent the text as a quote) - but the screenshot of the question is in a link at the bottom. More notation: I will write my questions in capital letters to highlight them. This is a convention: it's not intended as shouting; it's writing a sentence in CAPITAL LETTERS to make it stand out from the rest of the text that is not a question (normal text), headings or highlighted text (bold face), and the original question (italics.) The purpose is to make all questions easily spotted at a glance, without having to sift through the rest of the text (for those who are in a hurry to get to the gist. I still maintain that the question in the title alone should suffice but, here we are.)

Splitting my original question in several - hopefully less prone to tautology - questions:
First we start with the picture. It shows a PNP transistor with the emitter junction directly biased by a small battery and the collector junction reverse biased by a larger battery. Granted, the picture is ugly, but not everybody can afford a pen tablet, and drawing with the mouse can lead to such uncertain drawings. Are users supposed to be discriminated on the base of their computing gear?
Moreover, this is the picture that can be found in several introductory electronics and physics textbooks when they explain the principles of transistor working (a couple of examples: David A. Bell, "Electronic Devices and Circuits" 2nd edition, fig. 4-4, p. 69 and fig. 4.5 p. 70; Millman, Halkias, "Electronic Devices and Circuits", fig. 9.3 p. 223)
Q1) IS THE UGLY PICTURE THE REASON THE QUESTION SHOULD BE CLOSED?

Now let's get to the body of text.
A few comments noted that the question was not properly formatted and user Eugen Sh. TeXified it correctly, apart from some missing spaces and lack of linefeeds (explained by the way this site renders two separate sentences when there is not a double space at the end of the first one.)
Q2) IS THE BAD FORMATTING THE REASON THE QUESTION SHOULD BE CLOSED?

The question opens with this preamble, where the OP sets up the stage with what the picture represents and what they have learned so far:

Quote from OP
In the above transistor, we know that due to forward biasing, the resistance is low in the p−n part and high in n−p part due to reverse biasing. And i learnt that voltage drop in p−n part is low due to the low resistance and voltage drop in n−p part is high due to the high resistance.

It is anticipated here what will be the only one question they are about to ask: they know (more or less, they are a beginner by their own admission) that if you forward bias a pn junction (from P to N) you get a small voltage across it and an appreciable current through it, and if you reverse bias it (from N to P) you can get a large voltage across it and a small current through it. They are about to ask (their one and only question) why one voltage is small and the other is large.
Q3) IS THIS 'PREVIEW' OF WHAT WOULD BE THE ONLY QUESTION THE REASON THE QUESTION SHOULD BE CLOSED (because it's not focused, of all reasons)?

They go on stating the one and only question they ask (why is the voltage across the reverse biased junction greater than the voltage across the forward biased junction if IE > IC), after explaining what they found confusing, i.e. the fact that even if the 'resistance' of a direct biased junction is low and the 'resistance' of a reverse biased junction is high, since IE>IC, it would still be mathematically possible (in their view) to have IEVEB > ICVCB (sign conventions might apply.)

Quote from OP
But in p−n junction, the current which passes is IE which is a high current and the voltage,let's say, Rpn is low, so by ohm's law voltage difference between the blue marked points E and B is V1=VE−VB = IE Rpn. Similarly V2 = VE−VB = IC Rnp. Now how do we conclude V2 > V1? Even though Rpn < Rnp,we have IE > IC. So there is the possibility of being V1 and V2 equal even.

Q4) IS THE REFERENCE TO THE NONLINEAR RESISTANCE OF THE JUNCTION (AND NOT TO AN UNNECESSARY DYNAMIC RESISTANCE) THE REASON THE QUESTION SHOULD BE CLOSED?

Q5) IS THE MENTION OF OTHER VARIABLES (NAMELY, CURRENT AND RESISTANCE) OTHER THAN VOLTAGE THE REASON THIS QUESTION IS NOT FOCUSED AND SHOULD BE CLOSED?

I noticed that there is still a small formatting error, namely "and the voltage,let's say,Rpn is low,so by ohm's law voltage difference between the blue marked points E and B is..." should read, instead, "and the voltage - let's say Rpn is low - so by ohm's law voltage difference between the blue marked points E and B is..."
Q6) IS THIS PART OF BAD FORMATTING THE REASON THE QUESTION SHOULD BE CLOSED?

Finally, after having asked the same question two times already, the OP summarized what the one and only question they are asking is, and by declaring their level of expertise so that a question could be given accordingly:

Quote from OP Then how is it plausible to deduce V2>V1 and not the other way around? I am sorry for having misconceptions but i am saying this from a beginner's point of view.

Q7) IS THE REPETITION OF THE ONE AND ONLY QUESTION ASKED THE REASON THE QUESTION SHOULD BE CLOSED? (Of all reasons because it is not focused?)

Q8) IF Q1-Q7 DID NOT EXPLAIN WHY: WHAT MAKES THE QUESTION NOT FOCUSED TO THE POINT IT HAS TO BE CLOSED?

I hope it is clear what I am asking, now.

---

Previous versions of the question

Why was this question closed and what were the "reason of moderation" for which it was deleted?

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/617839/voltage-drop-in-transistor

EDIT: to clarify: I asked this question about ten days after the question was closed, and maybe one or two day after if was deleted. The reason for closing and deleting it, therefore are independent of what I am writing here post-facto. If the remaining additional information is too confusing, just ignore it. The question I am asking is:

"Why was this question deleted and why was it closed?"

---

The question was in topic and clearly stated, just not well formatted (it had an ugly picture but not everybody owns a drawing pad). Here is the text of the question

https://i.postimg.cc//JnfK3Gsv/screenshot-3.png

And here is the reason given for closing it.

https://i.postimg.cc//nh3kRdsv/screenshot-2.png

There was no point in editing the question because it was clear what was asked (the focus is quite clear: why is one voltage bigger than the other) so once closed it was impossible to reopen it by editing it without asking a different question.

( Incidentally it was also an interesting question because the answer could be used to explain the core of transistor action and how a transistor can be seen as a way to match impedances. For those who think it was unanswerable, here is a possible answer to complement the other information I had given in the comments: https://i.postimg.cc//1tfFPWp6/LOL.png ) 3d8098c310eb3583a51c95f338b340c5

But my question is only partly about why it was closed. It is also about why it was deleted. What were the "moderation purposes"?

Answer 1

"Why was this question deleted and why was it closed?"

The question was closed because three members who have enough reputation to allow them to vote to close questions did so. (As noted by Massimo Ortolano : The identity of those who voted to close is available to anyone by clicking on the timeline.)

The reasons that people vote to close a question are known only to the people voting. They may make a public comment as to why they vote but if they don't their reasons are unknown.
These people have been given this ability due to their reputation scores. It is assumed that people with this degree of experience act in a reasonable and logical manner.

The question was deleted by a "community bot" which has moderator status, because it met specific criteria for deletion, as described here

Site rules relating to closing and deletion (and much more) are controlled by the owners and employees of the organisation running this site. Most rules affect an extremely large range of groups. Users and moderators can submit comments for consideration but at a given moment "the rules are what they are" and users and moderators have no immediate control over their functions.

Answer 2

A community bot deleted it, not entirely sure why. It could be because of cross posting across sites. But due to the poor content I see no reason to undelete it.

Answer 3

After four months and more that 250 views, I find it very telling that NOBODY on this META has found a specific reason good enough for that question to be closed. It's not that the people in here have reached the conclusion that, no maybe it was an error of judgement and it shouldn't have been closed. It seems to me, from the downvotes as well, that people here believe it deserved to be closed. So, what is the specific reason, I have been asking? (I am giving here my answer to the question)

Was it closed out of spite for posting a hastily drawn picture? There are tons of questions with bad pictures. Was it closed because it lacked a space here and there? There are tons of questions with bad formatting. Was it closed because there was a typo in one of the formulas? (not sure if it was introduced by the user who formatted it, anyway there are heaps of questions with bad pictures, a typo here and there that do not get closed for any or all of the trivial matters above.) Or was it closed because those who voted to close it do not understand how transistors work and thought it was the OP to be confused to the point of asking an incoherent question? This last part does not make much sense, either. Should questions only be asked by people who already know the answer? And regarding the 'focus', it was laser sharp. But I understand it is customary to give bogus reason for closing, once one has made up his mind a question does not make sense.

One of the people who voted to close chose not to make a proper answer and instead answered in the comments, against the site's rule. So many times I have seen "comments are not for extended discussion", "comments are not for answering", "comments prevent content from being searchable", "comments prevents voting"... The impression given here is that rules are not for everybody and some users are 'more equal' than others. Claiming "I have given up providing reasons now because it seems inevitably I get suspended", is not a tenable justification on Meta. You are not asked to give the reason for closing in the comments section of the answer on EESE. (Also, is the mechanism that gets users suspended wrong, then?) This is Meta: share your reasoning so that it can be evaluated by your peers. The vague reason given in the comments above is "I probably voted to close as needing more focus because the question asserts things that I regard as wrong". So, are these 'things that [are] regard[ed] as wrong" a secret? This is an elementary circuit: it should be easy to explain what was so wrong with the answer to the point of closing it. Why are the users who voted to close avoiding discussion - which should be the purpose of Meta?

I chose this particular question because the topic is so basic that any engineer worth its salt should be able to form an opinion about its 'answerability' and its 'focus'. And yet it seems that a question as simple as this can create problems even in seasoned engineers. I posted it on another forum, just to get a reality check, and while nobody had problems in understanding what the OP was asking, it exposed certain misconceptions some had. To be more specific: it is perfectly fine to have batteries without current limiting resistors directly attached to the transistor (when the voltages are less than the maximum allowed values, of course); the transistor is essentially a multiterminal nonlinear resistor; and the concept of resistance as ratio of the total voltage and total current (as opposed to the incremental or differential resistance of small signal analysis) does have a meaning; finally, the transistor does not only amplify small signals about the biasing point: amplification can be referred to large signals as well.

So, here is my answer to the question I posed: From the interaction in this Meta I have reached the conclusion that the people who voted to close this question have a problem with at least one of the simple concepts above.

There's nothing to be ashamed of, of course, we all have a blind spot here and there; what is wrong, though, and what I am trying to bring the attention to is that people should not vote to close questions on topics they do not fully understand. But most importantly, it's the ensuing "we are right, no matter what, but we won't tell you what was wrong in the question and so there is nothing to discuss here" attitude of certain (several? most?) curators - or whatever is the title they give themselves - that is disappointing to say the least. And I am not even bringing up the selective deletion of comments.

In one of the comments someone asks why didn't I do anything.

1. The question was closed and deleted before I could do anything (not everyone spend every single day on this site) but in any case I was not particularly interested in this specific question, but in the process of abritrarily closing questions. I chose this question to highlight the problem because it was about a very simple topic and also touched what seem to be shared misconceptions, but I would not have done anything to avoid alter your dynamics. Moreover:
2. I no longer contribute to this site (except for a few rare exceptions), I am just pointing out how it is broken in the vain hope that the people still willing to participate in it could change it.
3. In the meantime, I leech the contents that from time to time can be interesting, but I really wished the level of the site would not be dragged down too much.

BTW, this is the text that generated the md5 code, right after "I hope it's clear what I am asking, now" at the end of my question:

It's about the "we don't know, we cannot know" part. But let's see if my crystal ball is working: I forecast downvotes that will have the effect to hide this Meta question and no real explanation about why the OP question was closed. Except mabye a vague and unsubstantiated "it's low quality" 'reason'. I would not be surprised to see some excuse not to answer the questions posed.

(Nice try with the image hosting website question.) So, i guess that if it is possible I will accept my own answer, because the other ones did not address the real core of my question (apart from the mechanism of automatic deletion by a bot due to the negative score).