"Other content appears to be original."
I'm guessing the editor saw it the same way.
Notes:
(1) The rule isn't "must not have any non-original content" but "must have significant unique content."
(2) Unique is not original, and original is not unique, but there is a relationship.
(3) The definition of "significant" is an editorial judgment, and we tend to lean over backwards in favor of sites, at least until we figure out we're being abused.
(4) "Cheesy" isn't an issue, and "commercial" may or may not be, depending on the category. (This category is perhaps "semi-commercial".)
I haven't reviewed the site again: in a collaborative community, though, you tend to accept each other's judgment unless there's a really good reason not to. But you're welcome to make your case for "really good reason why this content isn't significant" or "really good reason why this site should be considered as 'primarily intended as an ad banner farm driving traffic to other commercial companies or sites.'"
What do you think?