I'm not here to kick up a fuss (I'm well aware of the fear of that whenever someone questions a decision to close or delete their answer) but I think maybe the "What constitutes original research" needs clarifying.
In an attempt to answer a question about a correlation I couldn't see any research done on it but the data was all there. I took the two data sets (with links to them) and compared them in a fairly trivial way (at least as far as I see it).
As it is original research is defined in the FAQ as when:
Answers are original research when they perform non-trivial analysis of available data and present a novel result which requires specialist expertise to review. It is acceptable to provide a collection of evidence, but not to apply non-trivial calculations that require a community of experts to evaluate. (This also includes the use of non-trivial Internet-based tools.)
In the comments it is said:
the general idea is "high-school level or lower" is trivial
Plotting two data sets against each other and calculating a correlation are high-school level.
Now I'm not saying my answer should have been kept, only that I had read the FAQ before posting my answer and hadn't thought it fell within original research.