Question: A recent trend seems to be delete voting a question immediately after it's closed. While I like the sentiment, it has caused issues. Quite often, the question will be deleted within minutes of asking. So quick that the original poster never sees that it was closed and just sees it disappear. So they think there was a bug and re-post the same question. This obviously is not great for several reasons. [Here is a question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5791241/what-is-the-difference-between-div-and-span-elements-in-html) that it almost happened to today (2 delete votes within 3 minutes of asking)...

I propose a "Delete Window". Basically, we'd still allow delete votes immediately after close. However once the necessary number of votes is received, a banner will appear on the question saying "This question is marked for deletion". Then it will remain available for some fixed time window as read-only (perhaps 1 hour). That way the poster can have time to see the fact that it was closed (and the marked duplicates).

The existence of the 20k 'rapid delete' has added some spice to this problem. A user submits a really poor question -- beyond reasonable repair. Within moments, it's both closed and deleted. Well, this is fine, except that it lacks a feedback path to the user, unless that user was watching closely enough to see the comments and/or close reason before the delete happened.

Answer: 
The speed at which a question is deleted is now in direct proportion to the question's suckiness. Higher suckiness means faster deletion.

[status-by-design](/questions/tagged/status-by-design "show questions tagged 'status-by-design'")

Your question assumes that people who post bad questions just need to be educated. But in my experience, the people who post really bad questions do not care about your explanations. They just want to post their spammy questions.

As an example, if a person posts three or four answers with links to their product or blog, without even making a feeble attempt to read the faq or find out what StackOverflow is all about, we don't try to educate them; we just burn their account (and all of their posts with it).

If it's really an honest mistake, the people willing to get better will figure it out.
If it were me, I'd do a "merge" instead of delete. This is very useful to gather metrics such as determining popular repeated questions and immediately offer them up in the new question title box question list.

Proper merging also helps incrementing usefulness of the original post, that is, if the first post covered 2 facts, a later duplicate could come up with a 3rd fact - a merge ensures the 3 of them co-exist, while a delete would potentially cause more duplicates which focus on the said 3rd fact.

Talking about all this brings "community wiki" to my mind. Perhaps this should be on a similar but smaller level?