I very much disagree with this request. In fact, I'd like to see NARQ back here on Meta.SO.
Meta sites accept feature requests, and bug reports, both of them are not technically questions. The other closing reasons should be enough, on meta sites.
The NARQ close reason obviously does not apply to bug reports and feature requests. And there's little risk of it getting used inappropriately, since only trusted users have the power to close questions anyway. And if there were a case where a bug report or feature request was inappropriately closed by some 3k+ rep users as NARQ, a moderator could easily step in and fix the problem.
Instead, the NARQ close reason applies to "questions" where the following description holds true (which is, not so coincidentally, the description for the NARQ close reason):
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form.
Please don't try and tell me you haven't seen Meta questions where that adequately describes the reason behind a closure.
Apparently the argument is that any question we would have previously closed as NARQ we can now close as "not constructive". I disagree with that. The "not constructive" close reason does not imply that the question is unclear, incomplete, or rhetorical. It implies that it is "not constructive". These are two separate problems, both of which are unfortunately quite common Meta sites.
Because "not a real question" is barely used, on a meta sites, differently from the other closing reasons.
I disagree. I either use it relatively often on the SE 2.0 Meta sites, or frequently wish I could use it here.
On this meta site, that closing reason has been removed, and it doesn't seem "not real questions" are still open.
That's because other close reasons are getting abused to close these questions; in particular, the "not constructive" reason. It's also because these questions get closed and deleted extremely quickly here on Meta.SO. That's not necessarily the case on SE 2.0 Meta sites. Just because you aren't seeing evidence of these questions does not mean that they do not exist.