An answer of mine was deleted because it was "substantially based on Original Research". I rather like the high standard of quality that questions and answers are generally held to here, and is one reason why I enjoy the site, so I'm not suggesting it's brought back without changes. But if there is some way to improve it I would like to do so.
I'm not contesting that it was based on original research, but I'm not sure I understand why it is considered so. For one I'd like to avoid making the same mistake twice. But also, if it's possible to fix my answer, I'd like to do so. The deleter made a second criticism of my answer that I do understand and think is probably worth considering, though it's not what I'm asking about here.
I don't want this to be misconstrued as complaining, so I'm hesitant to link the question. I don't think it's necessary, I think I can just give the general outline. So here it goes...
The majority of a certain group of people share a trait.
- Found a list of representative people of this group. (note the deleter's second criticism is that this list might not be representative, which certainly could be true)
- Checked each of these individuals for this trait in a series of trivial searches
- Presented the results in a list
- As a summary, presented the percentage of members with the trait
I took a look at What constitutes original research?
And I'm at a loss to see why it qualifies. I guess it could fall into
Negative Searches - Answers are original research when they are based on the fact that the answerer found no relevant results when looking at non-verifiable or non-replicable search results, such as Google queries.
As most of the group didn't seem to have the trait. But it's not something that's easy to miss when reading a summary of the biography of an individual. And it certainly is replicable.
So I hope someone can help me to learn from this experience and maybe even save the answer. As it's a question without other answers for 2 years, and I put a fair bit of work into it and thought it was pretty decent one.