Two answers (one of which I wrote) to this question on the commonest boys names in England were recently deleted on the basis they constituted "original research".
I would like to understand why this judgement was reached.
The general rule is:
It is up to the answerer to provide valid, verifiable and potentially replicable evidence, and to show convincingly that it is relevant to the question. Every answer should be suitable for review and voting by our community of experts in evaluating evidence. Answers which require non-trivial specialist expertise or are anecdotal in nature are not acceptable due to the nature of this community.
My answer consists of nothing more than drawing some charts and pictures based on the single definitive data source that actually answers the question. Every fact is directly verifiable by any user as the raw data is linked and is a simple list of names and usage counts. The pictures/charts make the results easier to see but involve no analysis that cannot be replicated or verified by examining the tables in the source.
The drawing of figures from data is explicitly allowed as the answer to this meta question states:
...we allow that as long as it's trivial. E.g. a histogram, scatter plot etc are all fine.
The key to not falling into "original research" is that the answer should stand without the plot and it should only serve a further explanation.
For example this answer of mine is as close as it can get to original research without being so: the plot is a summary and there's independent evidence being presented.
My answer is entirely compatible with this judgement as it involves no extra analysis at all never mind trivial analysis. I have simply visualised the data in the source table (and the visualisation could be reproduced by anyone who knows how to use a spreadsheet and does not require any "community of experts"). Every part of the answer can be independently verified by any site user by examining directly the content of the definitive source data.
So why has the answer been deleted as "original research?