user740: This question was asked yesterday by a new user (Can DNA & RNA be considered as nature's programming language?) which, in my opinion, was totally answerable in a general sense, and would correct a popular misconception about how genetics works.
The full text of the now self-deleted question is:

According to me, the final frontier of Biological Sciences, is understanding what the rearrangements of 4 compounds (A,G,C,T/U) for DNA/RNA could achieve. If after fertilization the DNA of the zygote could be genetically engineered to prevent complications occurring later in the life of that human being, it could become the ultimate medicine. Also maybe, we could modify the behavior of stem cells. Also, we have yet to know what 98% of the DNA is there for, maybe if it wouldn't be there, rest 2% wouldn't function at all (i.e. just become a mass of chemical compounds).
Am I right to assume that, DNA & RNA is the ultimate blueprint of all living organisms, and that all other fields in Biology is just beating around the bush?

However less than an hour after the question was posted it was closed as "primarily opinion based". This was pretty annoying as I'd spent a fair amount of time constructing an answer, only to have it refuse to post it because it was closed. I posted a summary in the comments, which addressed the users question and they then deleted the entire question because it was answered.
This is not the only instance where I think questions by users new to SE have their questions closed immediately for no good reason other than the users reading the question do not know how they would answer it in a succinct, SE-like way.
Basically the point of my post here is not to complain at everyone on SE - there are plenty of excellent reasons to close questions that are picked up well by the reviewers (although I think the "homework" option should be changed to "not enough research shown" or similar, that's another meta topic) - but to highlight that just immediately closing a question because you cannot think of how to answer it does not really help.
With the example I linked to I think it is a popular misconception that DNA is "like a programming language", and this question would come up well in many google searches, therefore having an answer (or preferably several answers) would be a good thing! Now the user has deleted the question entirely because of the premature closing.
My proposal would simply be to leave "questionable" questions, like the linked one, open for more than 50 minutes to see if someone can actually come up with a good answer, rather than assuming nobody can answer it. This would be hard to implement programmatically, as there are plenty of questions that deserve to be put on hold immediately, but culturally we could all contribute to this?

user3624: I was the one who first voted to close, so here is my rationale for voting to close this particular question. To me, this question (as currently stated) ticked almost all of the close reason boxes. It is unsourced, speculative (e.g. "...become the ultimate medicine"), broad, opinon-based ("...other fields in Biology is just beating around the bush") and poorly researched. I therefore think the vote-to-close was an easy choice in this case.
However, I do see your point that answers could have been useful, especially for site traffic and in reference to the "DNA as a programming language" misconception. But in that case, the question needed quite a bit of editing to be ok/suitable. I think questions have to be evaluated in their current form, and not from the perspective of what they could potentially become. The best course of action here would have been to close the question (since it was problematic), to edit it (by the OP or by somebody else - maybe the potential answerer), and then reopen it. I do think it was unfortunate that the OP deleted the question directly after it was closed. 
Sure, we could also allow a "grace period" before closing questions, but this would be inefficient and we would risk that poor questions could stay on the site for too long. Some users also only visit the site occationally (maybe because of time constraints), and a grace period would mean that they would often not be able to participate in closing, partly because they don't have the time to follow discussions in the comment section. This is why I think questions should be evaluated in their current form when voting to close. 
Finally, I don't have a problem with this Q being undeleted, edited (to target the "DNA as programming" misconception), opened and then answered.

740: <p>This question was asked yesterday by a new user (<a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/29663">Can DNA &amp; RNA be considered as nature&#39;s programming language?</a>) which, in my opinion, was totally answerable in a general sense, and would correct a popular misconception about how genetics works.</p>
<p>The full text of the now self-deleted question is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>According to me, the final frontier of Biological Sciences, is understanding what the rearrangements of 4 compounds (A,G,C,T/U) for DNA/RNA could achieve. If after fertilization the DNA of the zygote could be genetically engineered to prevent complications occurring later in the life of that human being, it could become the ultimate medicine. Also maybe, we could modify the behavior of stem cells. Also, we have yet to know what 98% of the DNA is there for, maybe if it wouldn't be there, rest 2% wouldn't function at all (i.e. just become a mass of chemical compounds).</p>
<p><strong>Am I right to assume that, DNA &amp; RNA is the ultimate blueprint of all living organisms, and that all other fields in Biology is just beating around the bush?</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>However less than an hour after the question was posted it was closed as &quot;primarily opinion based&quot;. This was pretty annoying as I'd spent a fair amount of time constructing an answer, only to have it refuse to post it because it was closed. I posted a summary in the comments, which addressed the users question and they then deleted the entire question because it was answered.</p>
<p>This is not the only instance where I think questions by users new to SE have their questions closed immediately for no good reason other than the users reading the question do not know how they would answer it in a succinct, SE-like way.</p>
<p>Basically the point of my post here is not to complain at everyone on SE - there are plenty of excellent reasons to close questions that are picked up well by the reviewers (although I think the &quot;homework&quot; option should be changed to &quot;not enough research shown&quot; or similar, that's another meta topic) - but to highlight that just immediately closing a question because you cannot think of how to answer it does not really help.</p>
<p>With the example I linked to I think it is a popular misconception that DNA is &quot;like a programming language&quot;, and this question would come up well in many google searches, therefore having an answer (or preferably several answers) would be a good thing! Now the user has deleted the question entirely because of the premature closing.</p>
<p>My proposal would simply be to leave &quot;questionable&quot; questions, like the linked one, open for more than 50 minutes to see if someone can actually come up with a good answer, rather than assuming nobody can answer it. This would be hard to implement programmatically, as there are plenty of questions that deserve to be put on hold immediately, but culturally we could all contribute to this?</p>
 3624: <p>I was the one who first voted to close, so here is my rationale for voting to close this particular question. To me, this question (as currently stated) ticked almost all of the close reason boxes. It is unsourced, speculative (e.g. "<em>...become the ultimate medicine</em>"), broad, opinon-based ("<em>...other fields in Biology is just beating around the bush</em>") and poorly researched. I therefore think the vote-to-close was an easy choice in this case.</p>

<p>However, I do see your point that answers could have been useful, especially for site traffic and in reference to the "DNA as a programming language" misconception. But in that case, the question needed quite a bit of editing to be ok/suitable. I think questions have to be evaluated in their current form, and not from the perspective of what they could potentially become. The best course of action here would have been to close the question (since it was problematic), to edit it (by the OP or by somebody else - maybe the potential answerer), and then reopen it. I do think it was unfortunate that the OP deleted the question directly after it was closed. </p>

<p>Sure, we could also allow a "grace period" before closing questions, but this would be inefficient and we would risk that poor questions could stay on the site for too long. Some users also only visit the site occationally (maybe because of time constraints), and a grace period would mean that they would often not be able to participate in closing, partly because they don't have the time to follow discussions in the comment section. This is why I think questions should be evaluated in their current form when voting to close. </p>

<p>Finally, I don't have a problem with this Q being undeleted, edited (to target the "DNA as programming" misconception), opened and then answered.</p>
