I see no reason to reopen this question in its present form, or its proper form.
First, I am not against editing a post to save it, even if it means adding research. However the cases where we can add research without changing the meaning of the post are few and far between because we don't know what kind of answer the questioner is seeking. Changing the meaning of a post is a violation of the help center guidelines, and contradicts a review queue rejection reason (two actually, as this also has the character of an attempt to reply). It may prove to be especially problematic if the guess as to what piqued interest in the question was wrong altogether, the answer accrues presumably valid answers as the result of a premature reopening and gets edited by its poster in a manner that invalidates the efforts, by clarifying the desired result.
If an off-topic question is asked that piques your own interest in such a way that you are willing to make such a drastic edit that it has a different meaning, I would suggest making your own question instead. Even if the only reason you want to reopen the question is so that you can provide an answer please do remember that you may answer your own questions if you think you have genuinely helpful information to share.
Maybe if you could adequately explain how you deduced the questioner's intent from the text provided as I had here, or provided evidence that you have somehow read their mind I would reconsider, but I doubt you can. I think this is all relatively baseless supposition.
The commentators point out other problems too: It is overly broad to ask about every example occurring on Google Books; we need more particular examples. It may even be primarily opinion based if the plethora of recommended and actual examples regarding whether to use the apostrophe are not sufficient evidence, although there may be mitigating factors. Questions about style also often tend to be closed as Primarily Opinion Based, because most stylistic choices are optional, and lack any systematic rationale.
I am not even sure if this question is validly about English, or Google Books software. Google Books treats punctuation apostrphes weirdly. Type in won't into the ngrams viewer and you'll get the message "Replaced won't with will not to match how we processed the books." The very first example I see on Google Books is clearly a transcription error. The second example almost omits punctuation altogether.
My recommendation is to roll this edit back so that the close reason matches the body of the text.
Also, it is not difficult to understand the question in its base form, but that question is a textbook general reference question, even if we posit the dictionary entries on reasonable searches aren't enough (which is doubtful) because they don't provide a complete explanation or comparison in a single link.
I would suggest that Grammarly is a sufficiently reputable resource specifically designed to answer this type of question, that gives an answer which appears on the first page of any reasonable google search you could perform. Here are archived search results for Won't, wont and both words put together. These results make the answer obvious enough to warrant closure, especially since the first and most reasonable search supposed by this edit returns many more congruent results.
And the stuff you establishes gives new meaning to the question by adding meanings that were not there before. How do you know for a fact that The Grammarist's answer is dissatisfactory? I doubt we do. In a perfect world, we would be able to infer that they would not bother to ask us, but in practical reality questioners accept general resources to questions frequently and they garner many votes for them as well, despite the fact that they simply are not a productive use of Stack Exchange's efforts. This is why we have a close reason like this.
However, I would like to make it clear that I am not saying the question is necessarily horrible, shameful, ridiculous, unsalvagable or even unworthy of being asked. I am just saying that it is that in light of the above consideration, it is the responsibility of the poster to show us that this is not the answer. However the edited question may be less clear than the original, so when they do, they should also add why it is not a sufficient answer, preferably by providing the context that casts sufficient doubt on the common knowledge. Perhaps a quotation by a famous author that frequently escapes the clutches of editors might save the question, e.g. the lack of capitalization in the writing of E.E. Cummings might cast sufficient doubt on the common knowledge. It'd still have to survive the other close reasons to be reopened though.
I'd provide an example of a question that asked whether his name should be written with or without capital letters, but I can't find it right now.