This question already has an answer here:
I had a question that got attention from one user. The Comments got toxic and the reputation of the question got voted into the negative range (presumably by the commenter). So I deleted it and basically asked it again and it immediately got voted negative without any rationale. Maybe it's a terrible question, but I couldn't find a duplicate and it seems reasonable to me.
Wouldn't it be great if, in order to vote something into negative territory (basically killing the question -- nobody spends time on a Q with negative rep), they had to at least edit the question or provide some rationale for killing the question?
Well, isn't this lovely? I know re-posting is rule-breaking, I'm exemplifying my own bad behavior to make a point. The current system incentives re-posts and is not very punitive against it. I got the results I needed by doing so. You can rely on the good-naturedness of the average person and peer pressure or we can have a civil discussion about how the system can be modified. I'm merely suggesting that there be more incentives to improve on a question rather than down-vote it into tumbleweed land.
In my opinion the entire StackExchange system is getting less collaborative and more competitive and the body of knowledge it contains suffers as a result.