G'day BJörn,
Something I feel have been missed is Sam Korn's original assertion that "[The image deletion] process is demonstrably broken" because this image was not deleted by it. I believe the process is not broken at all, but that Sam's approach to it was wrong. If he had stuck with the 100% demonstrably true facts; 1. the image is not free, 2. there is a free replacement, then I believe the image could have been deleted without much fuss. But when you use emotional arguments ("This image is extremely harmful to Wikipedia..."), expect a filibuster.
I just had this amazing flash of insight! Like many amazing flashes of insight, it may be off-target, so feel free to correct me.
Let's step back in time, and give Sam his time over again.
(SK = "smoddy", LT = "Lolicon Trolls" because I couldn't think of anything better on the spur of the moment, SP = "FloNight", FL = "freedom lovers")
SK: Hi, I'm smoddy. I think you should delete this image because it's an unnecessary fair use image and there's a better free image available. LT: Actually, in the free image you don't quite get the same close up of sickeningly inappropriate child porn. Also, some of the magazines in the free image print drawings of adults, which is clearly wrong. SP: I agree with Sam! LT: FloNight agrees? That proves this is all about censorship! FL: AAARGH! WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED! I haven't even seen this image, but we *cannot* delete it! You monsters! You're just like the Communists! Or was it Fascists?!
The moral of the story and, incidentally, the only part of this email that's serious, is that certain images will attract a crowd of anti-censorship Wikipedians regardless of what reasons we have for deletion.