The question How should we deal with Google questions? defines a Google question as a question that you can find the answer to by a simple Google search and according to anon's answer, such a question can be flagged as off topic. However, some web pages are very unreliable. Sometimes people get a search result with wrong information. If somebody asked a question making it very clear and explaining how they could find some Google search results with the answer but all of the ones they could find an answer in, they think are unreliable web pages, and they believe there are some experts who already know the correct answer, I don't see the problem with them asking that question.
You accepted the premise of the question verbatim, but the answers explain why that is entirely incorrect.
Legitimately asking folks to flag or close questions which are <quote> "easily Googleable" is not a thing. It grew from one of our early (unfounded) policy discussions that took on a life of its own… until it devolved to the point of absurdity.
There is absolutely no basis for closing a question based on a user's ability to do a Google search.
Where did "easily googlable" come from?
Once upon a time, we imagined Stack Overflow filling with questions of overt trivia — questions like: "Who wrote 'The Art of Computer Programming?'" — where it was felt that folks should take the smallest bit of effort to look it up before asking folks to do it for them.
It never became a problem in actual practice, and we dropped close reasons like "general reference" and "too localized" a long time ago.
Still, the belief that a question should reach some pre-sanctioned level of complexity before someone is allowed to ask devolved into littering questions with LMGTFY links (now banned). Later, users started building lists of reference material folks should be required to consult before asking "general reference" questions (Star Trek Encyclopedia and Wookieepedia even made that list somewhere).
Folks later coined the term "lazy question" to label users running afoul of this "Google first" requirement — which finally devolved into discussions about exactly how deep an answer should appear in a Google Search before not being deemed "too obvious".
It's all nonsense. Ignore it, or point folks here who suggest such activities are somehow warranted.
It's not really about googleability. It's about overall quality. Folks prefer it if you show your work, rather than expect to have what looks like a simple question answered.
Showing your work's things like showing what you have tried so far (which saves you the trouble of having someone telling you to try that thing you already tried, or catching the typo you missed). Research helps you find questions already asked, saving you time.
If it's simple enough to type into a search engine, its a title, not a question. Add to it, build on it.
If you think a resource you found on Google is wrong, include a reference to it and why you think its wrong.
Showing your work is powerful.
That said, all these things help you get the best answer possible.