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 what you are suggesting we add back is the concept of the *author* being dismissed out of hand if they don't get Stack Exchange the first time around.

> You don't get it so this needs to be closed. Buh-bye.

Period. End of discussion.

At least that's the perception engendered by the old close system. It's that *"no one is interested in helping me"* ethos that the new close system is designed to address:

[**War of the Closes**](http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2013/06/the-war-of-the-closes/)

The problem with the ***original*** close system was that it was laid out primarily to provide a clear course of action for *experienced* users like yourself. But it did little to help users 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.