A lot of questions receive very little attention, and as such are very likely uninteresting to anyone but the author. At the moment there is no incentive for authors to revise or delete such questions (even after the author is no longer interested in an answer), which means there'll be an ever increasing amount of such questions over time. As an incentive for users to clean up old questions which didn't receive any attention, there should be an initial cost to posting a question, which could then be reimbursed when upvoted for the first time, or when the user deletes the question.
What is meta?
- Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
- The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
- Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates
Tumbleweeds get swept up
Here's the rules from the linked answer
Not getting an answer should be enough of an incentive to improve a question.
Now questions with little attention might be niche-questions, which can be either good or bad: if there is only a small portion of people looking at it, they will not get any votes, but that doesn't mean the question should be revised or deleted as far as I'm concerned.
Questions that are uninteresting because of their content/the way they are asked instead of the topic, should be downvoted, which will give you the desired result?
Most poor questions are asked by first time users. First time users don't have reputation (currently you can't go negative) to decrement in order to ask. It would also present a negative experience when first encountering the system. Further a good question could be "punished" simply because it's hard or doesn't attract any attention. I've had a few that have languished for awhile before getting an answer.
There are already structures in place to help improve questions: editing, "free" downvotes on questions, closure, comments, etc. I don't see where this is an actual improvement. I'd hate to see a situation where people are discouraged from asking because they know up-front that it will cost them. I'd also hate to see questions deleted simply because they haven't attracted attention. That, in itself, is not indicative that it is a bad question.
I don't think the lack of attention necessarily means lack of quality, because of this I see no reason to provide incentives to delete questions. Some good questions might be without upvotes because they are very complex and people are unsure about voting it up because they don't understand it completely (just an example, but it can happen).
Besides, a question that doesn't receive a lot of attention now, could be answered in the future (assuming it's legit, not off topic, NC, etc) and therefore still serve its purpose. What if I ask a very good question, no-one considers it, but after a while it gets answers and attention (for whatever reason)... Why should I be encouraged to delete it? That might lead to delete potentially good questions and therefore it would just cause the site to lose good content.
What I mean is that the lack of attention/upvotes, be it for one day or three months, doesn't necessarily make that question bad or dangerous.
That can be quickly established through comments, down-votes and Meta discussions about it. If a question deserves to be closed or deleted, it will be.
I would sugest that a question should have a time limit defined by the poster, like such:
If no answer (and no upvotes) after X hours (or days): delete question
Dont forget that there is the "Peer Presure" badge!