Lately, I'm seeing a lot of questions in the review queue which are marked for closure due to being 'too localized', or 'not a real question'.

Some of these are marked on the same day they're asked, and some already have answers.

If someone is quickly able to answer a question, it seems likely* that there was a real, answerable question. If it has generated a quick response (upvotes, comments, good-bad-mediocre answers), it seems likely* that it affects more than a extremely narrow subpopulation, and it certainly hasn't been abandoned. (*Yes, assuming answerers are rational, altruistic, and that other unlikely optimal conditions are being met -- but the general point generally stays.)

Some of these questions are being flagged so rapidly that there is no way that a reasonably large group of potential editors or answerers has even seen them.

Even if a question is astoundingly ignorant, it still may prove enlightening for the similarly placed searcher.

If a question is badly expressed but still obvious, or layered under meandering narrative, or not explicit, just edit it. Or vote it down and edit it. Or vote it down and run.

Don't use the option to close as a cudgel, a reaction to a substandard or badly formulated query. This prevents any possible good coming out of bad but relevant questions. (And if it's a bad question because it's a duplicate, take the extra 75 seconds to find the duplicate and mark it as such.)

I don't know if there are good counter-arguments, but I think this practice is harmful and misuses the tools we've got.

Lately, I'm seeing a lot of questions in the review queue which are marked for closure due to being 'too localized', or 'not a real question'.

Some of these are marked on the same day they're asked, and some already have answers.

If the question is bad -- fix it and/or comment and/or or vote it down.

(As Luis Alvarado suggests, showing a new user how the site should be used, how good questions are written, or giving other constructive guidance in comments is ideal.)

If someone is quickly able to answer a question, it seems likely* that there was a real, answerable question. If it has generated a quick response (upvotes, comments, good-bad-mediocre answers), it seems likely* that it affects more than a extremely narrow subpopulation, and it certainly hasn't been abandoned. (*I'm assuming answerers are rational, altruistic, and that other optimal (if unlikely) conditions are being met -- but the general point remains.)

Some of these questions are being flagged so rapidly that there is no way that a reasonably large group of potential editors or answerers has even seen them.

Even if a question is astoundingly ignorant, it still may prove enlightening for the similarly placed searcher.

If a question is badly expressed but still obvious, or layered under meandering narrative, or not explicit, just fix it: edit it, leave a useful comment. In some cases, vote it down. On seeing a really bad question, you can even just run away. All better than voting to close with slim justification.

Don't use the option to close as a cudgel, a reaction to a substandard or badly formulated query. This prevents any possible good coming out of bad but relevant questions. (And if it's a bad question because it's a duplicate, take the extra 75 seconds to find the duplicate and mark it as such.)

I don't know if there are good counter-arguments, but I think this practice is harmful and misuses the tools we've got.