Encouraging an author to improve their work doesn't necessarily imply it can (or even should) be salvaged. At the very least, the introspection might help them improve their work in the future. That's the point. The new close system gives users clearer guidance about where they went wrong so they can either (a) fix the problems or, failing that (b) not repeat them in the future.
Certainly some questions are destined to (and need to) be closed, no doubt. But being told simply that your question is not real has fuel this wide-spread belief that we are more interested in alienating users who haven't learned all our nuances rather than helping them with their problem.
You don't get it so this needs to be closed. Buh-bye.
Period. End of discussion.
At least that's the perception. It's that "no one is interested in helping me" ethos that the new close system is designed to address:
The truth is, our original close system was designed with the experienced community in mind; to help them identify why a question didn't quite belong. But the old close reasons did little to help the author of the question understand what the heck was going on… or help them understand the process of improving their content so it does work.
In contrast, the new close system was written with the the author (and majority of less-experienced users looking on) in mind — part peer review… part educational.
This question is not usable because of the following problems. If you feel you can address these problems, here's what needs to be done… or at least how you can have a more productive experience next time around.
Of course we recognize that some posts may simply be unsalvageable. But that's no reason to stamp a question: "sorry, we are no longer talking about this." It's inherently community hostile and the leading reason users found Stack Exchange increasingly elitist and unwelcoming to all but the most experience users who have been here since the earliest days.