So wait, we have approved 3d and scenic stuff whose only nod to being "anime" is that their artists are from Japan, or they have some references to Japanese landmarks/buildings(if any at all), but esorano can't make the cut when they have precedence? I mean, the only things that are anime-ish about anime art are the ridiculous clothings and humongous eyeballs. The other bits you can cut out and fit just about in any style anywhere whatsoever.

They got animal ears, Japanese clothing, huge eyeballs, and whatever you care to name. How are they not anime-ish?

I mean, sure, no one's flashing their boobs or panties, but that isn't the standard requirement, is it?
@freenight, no mod approved those images in 3 days. I only gave one reason why I did not approve them, since they was a significant group from the same artist; why I ended my deletion comment with <imo>. Other mods may have other reasons for not approving them.

I have never seen an anime drawn with the texturing and coloring style used in these images, have you? These look much like what I remember in older US visual novels such as Cerebus (the comic), although of higher quality.

scenic images are drawn in the same style as you would see in any anime image, but may or may not have characters present, the scenic tag only implies that the characters (if present) are not the primary focus of the image.

I generally don't approve 3d images as I don't like computer generated 3d shading, such as post #201188 which looks almost but not quite realistic. These images to me look more "fake" than 2d anime because they are clearly fake, but too close to realistic to permit the mind to suspend belief.

Going through a number of the 3d posts, I would question the 3d tag on many of them such as post #235907 or post #225289 as examples - imo anyway.

The existing esorano posts are over 2 years old and approved before the last purge of <not anime enough>> posts. (I do not want to go there again!)

I would not argue if another mod were to undelete your images. However none of those posts garnered over 30 votes in 3 days and several were below 20 suggesting that the membership does not appreciate those images.
The reason I didn't approve them was because I didn't think they looked good. Now, they're wonderfully drawn and very detailed, but I personally don't like that heavy texturing/crayon shading look.

I think the style is fine though. It's not NOT anime.
I have been inactive and didn't notice the initial uploads of these. I consider all the deleted images to be in anime style (possibly with the exception of post #240123 ) and I don't have any personal aesthetic issues with their style either. I'm not thinking straight actively though @[email protected], so I'll run them through technical evaluations and consider undeleting some at a later date.
post #240123 is the only one of the series, I hesitated to delete because it had a significant discussion thread. However, the vote count was only 20, indicating that overall there was not really much member interest in the post as a wallpaper.
When a picture as deleted for the reason "not approved for 3+ days". What means ?
I don't understand exactly, why her deleted.

For example, post #241412
I find the quality is correct, but apparently... no.
I would like to understand for the next.
We delete things after three days if they're not approved to prevent clutter.

The reasons I didn't personally approve that post was because of the positioning of her breasts.
Indeed, there is a slight shift.
I didn't think it was a defect, personally.
The quality control of breasts is rigorous.
The image quality and art quality itself was fine. It was just the odd boob placement. So the image itself isn't terrible, just not as good as it could be.
Roger that.

I understood why she's not approved

Thanks you for your explain. :)
Some mod can undelete the post #246302, I deleted it because I thought that the post #246303 was bigger, but it's just a variation
Done. And a really nice post also
Some mod can undelete the post #250786 if it is ok.
See, the thing you gotta remember is that Mogu draws younger looking faces anyways. The body, while having small breasts, doesn't strike me as being really "loli" in that post. It's just how Mogu draws people.
ok, was a misconception, since I had seen marked as loli in another site.
I noticed that has an easier chance of being tagged loli than here. One tiny piece of baby skin there and *poof* it's loli
Well, in some circles "loli" also encompasses girl's with petite builds or smaller chests. But here we use "loli" only for girls who are actually child like or who are actual kids.
otaku_emmy said:
Well, in some circles "loli" also encompasses girl's with petite builds or smaller chests. But here we use "loli" only for girls who are actually child like or who are actual kids.
Yeah that is what i was implying

and i am typing the dmail btw. I kept on deleting and deleting because lunch would always be over too soon, and I kept on wanting to make it fresh
Some mod can undelete the post #251634?, I noticed a lot of "jpeg artifacts" after I sent it , would be deleted anyway, but I was looking the first variation of the same post on pixiv "version with logo", then I realized that the second one (post #251634) was ok.
post #257231 "Sayori don't approve public sharing"

She said that can not? if yes, ok I understand.
Judging from that and the fact that Sci has stated twice that they shouldn't be posted, I decided to delete it.

There was some SNAFU with stuff being released early by accident, apparently.
post #230740 has been deleted due to image quality? or because of the nose? or both?

if it has been deleted due to quality is ok leave the scan? if it's good enough to stay on the site.
I undeleted the scan and transferred votes from the other image.
Sorry to bother, but may I ask why was post #258235 not approved? (left 3 days without approval, In my crappy screen looked ok ^-^"")
The waifu made the image look a bit too muddy. That's why I didn't approve it. Can't speak for the other mods though.
It has been run through waifu2x with a huge amount of noise reduction. If that was done to get rid of scanning artifacts, that's not how you should do that.

I can't tell how much of the poor quality and lack of detail is due to the noise reduction and how much was lacking to begin with. But as is, it's certainly below our standards.
This is the original image, I ran it through waifux2 using low noise reduction in order to avoid exactly that, as I did with post 258234, I believe that the issue is mainly due to the scan not being that good
The original is a 200x142 thumbnail? Or did you link the wrong image?