The question was originally closed for the lack of research closure reason. Hotlicks voted to close with the claim that the answer could easily be found with a google search, and Dan Bron voiced similar concerns in a prior comment. The chatlog with the relevant comments can be seen here.
I was the last person to vote to close this question, with the comment:
Hi Naser. We have policies in place to prevent the proliferation of questions which are likely to have a freely available and adequate answer elsewhere, so we can be of real help. If you can consult a dictionary definition and tell us why it confuses you or explain any doubts you have regarding it, we would probably be willing to help, but in the question's present state we can't really be sure of how to help you understand the word much better than a dictionary can.
For me, this was because Google's top result for just the word mansplain led me to Merriam-Webster's website which contained an adequate enough definition of the word alongside a few illustrative quotations, which at the time made me presuppose that the question not only lacked research, but also met the general reference criteria.
That would all be good and fine if the answer imparted adequate understanding, but continuing conversation indicated that this was not quite adequate for the needs of our questioner, who made a couple of subsequent edits to include what he found on google and made the following comments:
Thanks. I found some example and definition but they were ambigues. So I searched in english.stackexchange and I didn't found any question like mine.So I thought it will be good ask this question here for getting good expressive example or definition from some masters.
@Hotlicks I updated my question. I think mansplaining is some think like saying hey you are a woman and you can't understand it. for example: a female have an idea about football, and a man answer women don't understands football.
I can not speak for the other close voters, but if the question had originally included this information, and the research provided in revision 4, I would not have voted to close the question. I made a couple of edits to make the question read more fluently, make proper citations and include information from the questioner's comments.
Hotlicks and Dan Bron made comments suggesting that the found definition represented an adequate explanation of mansplain, but I have a touch of disagreement, and suppose there may be merit in answering the question. Naser does not seem to be fully convinced, and his newfound understanding of the word mansplain is close, but I suspect it is not quite right.
A man's mansplanation is usually a more subtle dismissal of a woman's wits through a condescending explanation that would presumedly not be profferred to a man due to its obviousness to anybody who has knowledge. "Women don't understand football" may be a misogynistic jeer, but personally I believe it is too direct and not explanatory enough to be called mansplaining. Maybe if a woman states something like "The Cowboys should have won" and a man named Captain Obvious states something more along the lines of "Whomever scores the most touchdowns wins" that might be a mansplanation, if it is assumed to be the sort of jeer that The Cap'n would not make make to the guys at the pub, predicated on the assumption that men understand the game better.
Perhaps I am mistaken, since mansplain is not really a word I hear often or use at all, but that is my own impression of it based on what little exposure I do have to it. Perhaps both cases are mansplaining, or I am entirely mistaken, but if I am right then this needs addressing in an answer by somebody with an adequate understanding of the word.
I also appreciate of Naser's efforts to cooperate with our recommendations and work to get the question reopened, and I would like to see him get the help he desires for that reason too. This sort of cooperativeness in getting a question reopened is a principle purpose of the closure reason, and it has been for quite a long time something we have had trouble achieving with new users. This is something Jay Hanlon wrote about in The War of the Closes, and it seems like the motivation for many of the recent changes such as new user notifications and the recent revision of be nice into the new code of conduct.
However I am not quite sure what to do about it. Strictly speaking, the question seems to comply with our research requirements (except for the check multiple dictionaries portion, which is never enforced) and perhaps for that reason alone it should be reopened. However, these definitions may be adequate for most people.
That combined with the fact that this question is predicated on preparation for going into the international social space, might make it more along the lines of what E.L.L. was founded to handle. Now I do not think that this is a bad question in its present state, at least if I can safely assume that I have not overstepped my bounds with the edit, but provision B for Cerberus's answer to Policy For Questions that Are Entirely Answerable with A Dictionary makes it seem like this might bar the question from the website, and it is the question linked in one of their local question closure reasons. On the other hand it seems to be exactly the sort of question J.R. was talking about in his answer to This Isn't English Morphosyntax Learners. Unlike Cerberus J.R. is a moderator there and that answer is more highly voted upon and newer answer.
I have not yet contributed much to English Language Learners, so I am not sure what questions are likely to be closed and hence thrown back to us if we do choose to migrate it, but I figure it is worth consideration given these factors.
It is worth noting that neither English Language & Usage or English Language Learners have many posts with the word mansplain or mansplaining, and no questions on either website seem to be within the scope of explaining its meaning. Either website may stand to have an open question regarding that.
Should we reopen the question, should we migrate it, does it need further improvement for a reason I have neglected to notice, or is there no chance that this answer can be reopened suggesting that it should be deleted?