When a question is phrased in a way considered not suitable for m.s.e., often within seconds it collects numerous down-votes and votes to close. There's no way to know who down-voted, nor who voted to close except when the question ultimately gets closed, but long experience shows that many people who habitually participate in this practice have hair-triggers. That's really really easy to do and maybe they feel they're maintaining the quality of the site.
This question quickly got three down-votes and a vote to close. Superficially, it looks like a question about how to do a certain step necessary to evaluate a certain integral. Another thing that's really easy to do without thinking at all is to take such superficial appearances literally.
What I would propose to do with questions of this kind is not to do the problem for them, but to tell them what they ought to be told about the subject matter. I hope the answer I posted does that. When one has observed that numerous students' confusion about this is not about a technical matter of how to proceed in executing a standard algorithm, but rather a lack of conceptual understanding, and one knows that the students themselves don't realize that that's what it is, then one may know that what the student needs to know is not the same as what the question says.
If proposed deletions had to be actually discussed (as with new Wikipedia articles whose deletion is proposed) then those with hair-triggers who vote first and think later might find out that they are capable of intelligent participation in reasoned argument. They would also find out that the world is bigger than what they can see.
I propose that a discussion page be created for each article that someone wants to close, and the decision on whether to close it would ensue from the discussion.
PS: It seems to me that the convention that says the poster should show some effort should really be construed as meaning they should show that they understand the question. Our systems of schooling provide some obvious incentives for some students to post questions that they don't understand. (And that is an indictment of those systems, including the concept of a "curriculum".) However, we have a nuance: Supposing it falls short of being proved that the poster understands the question. One kind of answer that frequently appears is a complete and detailed answer to the question and all "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed. Another is subtler: One can surmise that if a student is having difficulty answering the particular question, then understanding of one particular idea may be lacking, and one's explanation of that idea might be phrased in such a way that those who understand the question are likely to understand the answer, but no solution for those who don't understand the question is found in it. In the particular question I linked to above, it is probable that the poster does understand the question; hence the votes to close were not a good idea in the first place. However, if not, then the kind of answer I posted might match the description above, of the second kind of answer. Those with hair-triggers might benefit from calibration that they won't get if their votes to close are just drive-by votes and they'll never be back.