Right now there are about a dozen submissions of Changbae's art that have been in approval queue for about a month. They all say that 2 reviewers have determined they aren't relevant to the site.

All of these images depict Changbae's goblin OC, Adelia. In the majority of the pictures, her pointy goblin ears can be seen, which make it clear she isn't a plain human. Combined with her extremely short and thick stature, it should be obvious she's a fantasy creature. In the only images where you can't see the ears, it's because they're obscured by body parts. But those couple images are part of a larger image sequence, so I would think they should be accepted too since the sequence clearly shows a non-human character.

There are also four submissions from about 2 months ago that were deleted for being irrelevant (human only). Those images show the same goblin character, but her ears are obscured by the nun outfit she's wearing. Despite this, you can clearly see her long ears poking the fabric outward in all four pictures.

The rules for the site are "tag what you see", and I totally agree with that philosophy. But the non-human attributes of this character in these images are seemingly being ignored. The upload guidelines say that "This means that orcs, elves, plant-people, humanoid aliens, are all fine", and fantasy humanoids like orcs, goblins, and elves are usually approved. I know it's a furry/anthro focused site and humanoids are borderline as it is, but IMO these pics definitely fit in the spirit of distinctly non-human characters.

Aside from these posts (none of which are mine), some humanoid submissions get randomly rejected or ignored. Characters from Dragon Maid seem to get approved or rejected arbitrarily, despite displaying dragon horns.

Can you link the posts in question?

Since last night they've actually been approved, but the couple where the ears weren't visible are still pending. Right now I'm putting the sequence into a pool. https://e621.net/pools/20686

The nun ones are post #2237387, post #2237388, post #2238588, post #2238589

If it looks like it's just a colored human, it's considered human. You need something more than color to discern that it's not human, otherwise Skeeter from Doug would count as humanoid instead, even though he's just a blue colored human.

How does the character NiGHTS classify? I uploaded a solo pic with the character (post #2296933) but it's been awaiting approval for a month. I looked through the deleted posts under the tag and a lot of them were rejected for being 'human only'. Is NiGHTS alien-looking enough to count for this site? It's a genderless fantasy creature with an extremely stylized face.

hurr_durr said:
How does the character NiGHTS classify? I uploaded a solo pic with the character (post #2296933) but it's been awaiting approval for a month. I looked through the deleted posts under the tag and a lot of them were rejected for being 'human only'. Is NiGHTS alien-looking enough to count for this site? It's a genderless fantasy creature with an extremely stylized face.

Likely too close to human to be approved. The face is no different from average emoticon, the lack of nose could be just a stylistic choice. There's nothing clearly non-human about them.

genjar said:
Likely too close to human to be approved. The face is no different from average emoticon, the lack of nose could be just a stylistic choice. There's nothing clearly non-human about them.

post #2332279 seems to have survived even though it has all the same characteristics.

genjar said:
Likely too close to human to be approved. The face is no different from average emoticon, the lack of nose could be just a stylistic choice. There's nothing clearly non-human about them.

I'm trying to research the character to get a better idea. Its head and hands are not connected to a body, and it's unclear if canonically there's anything under its clothes at all. It's also not clear if the horns are just part of a jester hat, or are intrinsically part of its head. Canon doesn't always dictate tagging but I don't know if its non-human features are significant enough to count.

Visually, NiGHTS gives more of a sonic/anthro vibe than a human one.

strikerman said:
post #2332279 seems to have survived even though it has all the same characteristics.

Except it hasn't, that post is actually a repost of post #2007325 which was deleted as irrelevant. I honestly can't weigh in on what would be "too human" because the distinction has never been relevant for me, but I understand and respect that not everyone feels that way.

nromrore said:
Except it hasn't, that post is actually a repost of post #2007325 which was deleted as irrelevant. I honestly can't weigh in on what would be "too human" because the distinction has never been relevant for me, but I understand and respect that not everyone feels that way.

rip, that example

Still, nights solo has quite a few other examples that also support the point.

I imagine the dividing line between too human-looking and just non-human enough is so murky and sometimes subjective enough that we can't effectively draw a hard line in the sand between the two. In fact, there's a gray zone in which pointy-eared elves and Adelia inhabit where admins have a hard time deciding if it's relevant or not, so end up passing the buck or stalling for a while instead of making an immediate decision. Allowing those elves and Adelia is already pushing the envelope of too-human as it is.

Just remember, a deletion because something is "irrelevant to the site" is not a judgment on the quality of the art or the worthiness of the subject. It just means that the picture didn't quite fit with the theme of e621 and would be suited for a site with a more suitable theme.

I think NIGHTS is so on the verge of not quite human-looking enough that it would be best to focus on images in which its non-human qualities are on display. As it's unclear if its horns are a jester hat or not, those aren't good indicators. Similar can be said about its possibly nonexistent body as we can't see if its there or not. The most obvious it's-not-a-human features would be its floating head and hands. Perhaps the face can be a factor if contrasted with clearly more realistic faces. Gray zone cases like this ideally should emphasize the non-human aspects of a character.

Thus, post #2332279 would likely be deleted as NIGHTS' non-human aspects aren't sufficiently emphasized. From the angle, one can't tell if the head is floating, the sleeves prevent the detachment of the hands to be seen, and the other character's face can't be seen. Still, this doesn't mean the picture is bad. It just means this isn't necessarily the site best suited for its display.