...provided there aren't any close votes already, of course.
It's no secret the close review queue has been pretty large lately (see here, for instance). It's sitting at 110 questions, as I write this (as penance for casting a first vote-to-close recently, I've been reviewing the close queue lately).
But this question made me think. It's pretty clearly not fit for the site, and I downvoted. In the span of a minute or two, it accumulated two more down votes.
And then a close vote. Should someone have been brave enough to cast the first vote-to-close stone?
I personally think it would have been better to spare the queue, and rely on the inherent unfitness of the question. That alone will probably ensure it won't receive an answer anyway. Who's going to sort through all of that to bother to answer?
My question: In general, is it a good idea to just let downvotes do the deleting after 30 days? Is there general agreement about this, at least on Meta?
I don't really care about the linked question in particular (which may have its own reason for closure, being related to Project Euler), it's just the first time I've witnessed a question get downvoted significantly and then have a close vote cast a short while later.
Sidenote: This question was ultimately closed in the time it took me to write this. Obviously, given the size of the close vote queue, not all questions move so quickly through the gears.
Double Sidenote: If it turns out there is agreement, I'm hoping this may serve as a "don't be so quick to vote to close" PSA.