My question was triggered by the following question, as it serves as a good example case applying to a general issue:
I voted to close because it is poorly researched. OP basically asks for a definition of psycho-analysis. I am not a cognitive scientist so I may be off, but my reasoning was that it is such a popular topic, and such a basic terminology question, that one Google search will definitely yield an extensive list of sources with a surplus of definitive answers. Moreover, psychoanalysis has its own tag wiki, making me inclined to believe it is used as a handle to ask a question and should not be the core of a question.
Now another user came back and said that it should not be close-voted because google'able answers deserve to survive, based on two meta questions: Embrace the non-Googlers and How should we deal with Google questions?.
I think this general meta opinion is helpful, but every SE site is different and hence I thought it wise to ask it here within the confines of Cognitive Sciences. For example, if a biological equivalent of the above linked question would appear on Biology.SE it would be downvoted and closed within a day. There we have a "Homework" close reason, which is loosely used to close poorly researched questions that can be answered easily by picking the first hit after copy-pasting the question title in Google. However, it is definitely a gray area, because that 'first hit' may be a wiki page that is often cluttered with information and perhaps difficult to understand for a layman. However, in the case of the above linked question, I am inclined to close-vote because it is such an elementary question.
What is the norm here at Cognitive Sciences for poorly researched questions - should we close such questions?