The short answer is "No, lack of responsiveness is not (in itself) a sufficient reason to vote to close", but the longer answer is more complicated.
Let's start from basic principles. There are various valid reasons to vote to close (unclear, too broad, lacks context, off-topic, etc.). Those are the valid reasons to vote to close. If someone asks a good question that complies with all the requirements, then lack of responsiveness is not on its own a valid reason to vote to close. On the other hand, if one of the reasons for closure applies to the question, then that reason is a valid reason for closure -- and that's true whether or not the original poster is responsive or not. So on first glance it appears that responsiveness is irrelevant.
However, in practice real life is a little more complicated. What should we do when we see a question that was just posted and in its current state should be closed, but could plausibly be fixed? Some people say "vote to close immediately, and leave a comment on how to improve it; once it is edited, it can be re-opened". But other people prefer "leave a comment and wait a day or two to give the poster a chance to edit first; if they don't improve the question, then vote to close".
For the latter people, as you can see, things a little more complex. In particular, if a poster posts a question that is off-topic/too-broad/unclear/etc. but is responsive to comments and immediately addresses any feedback, those people won't vote to close. On the other hand, if the poster posts a question that is off-topic/too-broad/unclear/etc. and is non-responsive -- doesn't respond to feedback in a timely fashion -- those people will eventually vote to close. That might look like they're voting to close because of non-responsiveness. They might even describe it as voting to close because of non-responsiveness. But, technically speaking, non-responsiveness is not the reason to vote to close. Instead, the reason to vote to close was the original problem with the post: that it was off-topic/too-broad/unclear/whatever. Because the poster was non-responsive, that original problem never got fixed, and it remains a valid reason to vote to close.
In other words, I'll draw a distinction between Stack Exchange guidelines on voting to close (prescriptive guidelines) vs observations on how people actually behave (descriptive information). Prescriptively, Stack Exchange says that you should only vote to close if a question meets one of the valid reasons for closure. You're not obligated to vote to close if the question meets one of those reasons for closure, but you shouldn't vote to close any question if it doesn't meet any of those reasons. In other words, meeting one of those reasons is a necessary but maybe not sufficient condition for voting to close. Descriptively, some users will immediately vote to close any question that meets one of those reasons for closure; others will only vote to close if the question meets one of those reasons for closure and the poster has been given a chance to improve their question and hasn't responded in a timely fashion. Either is OK and 100% allowed by Stack Exchange rules; both models are perfectly acceptable. As long as you only vote to close when the question meets one of the valid reasons for closure, it's up to you to decide whether and when to use your vote to close.
For the question you link to, I see five users who voted to close on the basis that the question is off-topic. They are absolutely right. The question was off-topic from the very minute it was posted. Nothing changed. When someone posts an off-topic question, people are free to vote to close whenever they come across it -- that might be immediately, or it might be a few days later. So, one might say that the primary reason for closure in this case is that the question was off-topic, not that the user was non-responsive; given this background, one person is free to vote-to-close because it is off-topic, and another person is free to vote-to-close because it is off-topic and the poster was non-responsive. Both actions are fine.
Finally, realize that users of this site are people. Sometimes they'll make mistakes, or have misconceptions. Feel free to educate them if you see that happening, or to ask on meta (which is what you did -- well done).