It sounds like you're not arguing that these questions should be reopened because they're quality questions, but rather because they can't be properly pigeonholed into any of the proper close-vote reasons provided.
To quote from your comment:
I am not concerned with whether these are good or bad questions, but more with the reasons for closing.
The reasons for closing a question in certain cases can be subjective, but the guidelines generally come from three places:
The help center's guidelines - these must be interpreted with some level of subjectivity, since no two questions are alike.
Community consensus - Since users often disagree about what questions deserve to be closed, this will never be truly consistent, although I agree with you that we ought to strive for consistency, as I argue in my Meta post here: What widely-accepted standards should be used to determine whether a single-word-request is too broad?
Moderator discretion
The options provided to users when they cast a close vote are made available as a convenience and to allow for a reasonably consensus-based explanation to be given to the user whose question is closed, so that if they wish to, they can improve the quality of the question so that it can be reopened. But nature of off-topicness is inevitably subjective to some degree. Combine with that the massive number of close-worthy questions that appear on the site routinely and end up on review-queues, and it means that these reasons won't always fit just right. That in and of itself isn't a reason to reopen a question. Instead, craft an argument for why the question and its answers provide value to the site.
Also note that the reasons for close-voting have not always been the same; they have been subject to change based on requests in Meta like this. For instance, there used to be a close reason called "General reference," indicating that the question could be easily answered with general reference material and therefore was not suitable for the site. I believe this reason was replaced with "Please show the research you've done."
Perhaps a reasonable request to make on Meta would be asking for the option of closing a question as too narrow.
Consider this hypothetical question.
It is not too broad; quite the opposite, it's seeking a very specific term, and certainly doesn't have too many possible answers.
It's not primarily opinion-based either.
It demonstrates a level of research comparable to many on-topic questions.
It's not a duplicate.
It's not unclear what the question is asking, in fact, it's very specific about what it is looking for.
It is about the English Language.
It doesn't belong on another Stack Exchange site, like ELL.
It includes information on how it will be used.
It is certainly not asking for proofreading.
What is a word for apples and oranges but not avocados or watermelon?
I work for a fruit stand and was wondering what labels to use for my
fruit products. I sell apples, oranges, avocados, and watermelon. I
keep the apples and oranges in one bin, because they're the most
popular. I keep the avocados in a separate bin because they can be
bruised, and I keep the watermelon in their own bin as well because
they're so large.
I've labeled the latter two bins "avocados" and "watermelons," but I'm
unsure what label to put on the bin that contains both apples and
oranges. I researched on Google and found a scholarly article that
contained this chart:
According to this chart, the common words would be edible fruit.
However, I searched in Oxford English Dictionary and found that
avocados are also an edible fruit.
How can I express what is only in the first bin with a short label,
preferably one word?
An example sentence would be: If you're looking for a ____, take a look at
bin one, it has both apples and oranges, but not avocados.
My point here isn't just to be playful, but also to point out that there will be close-worthy questions that don't fit just right into any slot of close-vote reasons. To some extent, users have to use their experience on the site, along with the guidelines and rules applied to the best of their ability. If a question is closed and a reason is provided, and one believes that it should be reopened, there is an expectation that significant changes are made to the question to enhance its quality and ensure that it adheres to the standards of the site.
Having said that, I noticed that a couple of the questions you cited have been reopened, or at least the question What do you call a lady who is proposed to by a man? has been opened as of this writing. So to that extent, you've achieved your goal. However, I thought this point about the nature of close-vote reasons is worth noting since there are numerous questions out there about which one could argue for reopening, and numerous questions left open about which one could argue for closure.
This answer is, to some degree, at loggerheads with my own Meta question linked earlier, since I argue there for consistency, and here I'm arguing that consistency is not always possible. I think my overarching view based on the comments and answers I received there and elsewhere on Meta is that some level of reasonable subjective diligence is required, as well as a thorough understanding of the existing rules and guidelines. Most importantly, we have to be aware that other users have different opinions about what types of questions are preferable for the site, and what types of questions are detrimental to the site, and if we don't take all of those views into consideration when we seek to close or reopen a question, we'll be stuck in a never-ending cycle of closure and reopening. Such a cycle might make sense on a question whose merits are highly complex and worthy of strong debate, but if we all fought that hard over every question, we'd be constantly distracted and unproductive.
