I would have rejected this. No matter what title is given to it, it does not have any apparent value as a POI. That is not the same thing as using an inaccurate title for a perfectly acceptable POI.
This is just some poured concrete. I have no idea how it meets the criteria.
That is a very interesting point, but you still didn’t answer what voting requests Niantic was referring to 
You only gave examples of code words.
“Please vote five-stars for Exploration”
“Vote ‘Yes’ on Garfield”
So “Please approve” is not a voting request?
It falls under “and other approved things” part. I am glad we agree on something, but Niantic did not want to remove this wayspot, even after a couple of appeals.
It’s a benign request. Of course they want us to approve or they wouldn’t have submitted it in the first place. They don’t submit something in the hopes it will be denied. There is no harm to the reviewer or the system from someone typing that phrase.
There are plenty of other phrases that are abusive. I will not outline them because i refuse to teach people how to become abusers.
They seem more like empty words. Nominating constitutes a request for acceptance, and was not the thing Niantic was trying to curb.
Please approve is the voice of someone lost in the weeds who doesn’t understand the who and how and why between their in-game action and the desired outcome. If they advise an approval path they’ve gone too far, in my opinion.
If they harangue: It’s a social hub and it’s not PRP or farmland, it’s safe and accessible, not a school. They’re not supposed to try to get you to not use your own judgement. You are expected to find a balance that is not overly harsh nor totally accepting.
May the gods have mercy on us all…
I know that people submit nominations hoping that their nominations get approved, but “Please approve” is a request nonetheless, even if it’s benign. The guide doesn’t say “Benign request are OK”.
I don’t consider “Please approve” as empty words. I consider that a request and a violation. Unless Niantic explicitly says this is not to be considered a request, I will continue reporting such nominations as abuse.
This is what Niantic means when they say that requests are abusive.
I just got this to review.
It looks like someone made a request in description instead of doing location edit. It could be abuse, could be someone doesn’t know how to do location edits over 10m.
But this is an example of voting request in description. What would be an example of voting request in supporting info for a new nomination?
I’ve already explained that much further up.
You said that “Please approve” in supporting info is a benign voting request. What would be a not-so-benign voting request in supporting info that should be reported as abuse?
This is your IMO, but what is Niantic’s position on it?
You’re wrong.
It’s not a voting request. Multiple people, including ambassadors, have told you it’s not a voting request. You might want to reflect on that information.
Saying that you “Need Pokéstops.” is already evident by the fact that the nomination exists, and is being voted on. They wouldn’t have made the nomination if they didn’t feel that they needed more Pokéstops. Full stop.
Some examples of voting requests are, but not limited to:
“Please choose the pin on the right.”
“Choose the North pin, it will allow the Pokéstop to appear.”
“Vote thumbs up on everything.”
“It’s me, Zaphod Beeblebrox, this is the nomination I told you about.”
“If you approve this, I’ll approve yours.”
“I’ll venmo you $1 if you vote to approve this.”
“I’m holding a kitten hostage, vote yes.”
There are far, FAR more egregious offences made by Wayfinders in nominations that deserve this sort of energy, this is not even close to being one of them.
Excuse me, but I nominate things because I believe they would be a good addition to wayspot network, not because I need more portals in Ingress. Some of them may not go live. Some may be in far away places I would not visit again or won’t visit regularly. That doesn’t stop me from nominating something that I think is good and that I think others can benefit from. The thinking of “I am nominating this because we need more Pokestops here” must stop. The thinking should be “I am nominating this because it’s cool, whether or not I will directly benefit from it in the future”. Several people mentioned that in PoGo it says “Pokestop” instead of “Wayspot” in nominations, so this must be fixed in-game, too.
In my personal opinion:
A) In the very short “tutorial” that is available when entering Wayfarer, the first thing we are told is: “Use your own judgment.” Let’s take that into account. For a novice explorer it only gives him to understand that his opinion counts
B) Later, through drawings it tells us, in very broad strokes, that YES and NO is what makes a good POI… and again here becomes a personal criterion.
C) Perhaps here it is worth mentioning the legal principle: “What is not expressly prohibited is permitted”, so:
What are we told that should not be in the title or description or photos?
1.- Codenames or codewords or someway to identify the author of the proposal.
2.- REQUESTS TO VOTE in a particular way, as mentioned before: “Do not move the proposal so that the pokestop appears” that is trying to influence the decisions of the reviewer (in my case I always review the location, and correct it , without taking into account S2 cells or the interaction radius).
For me it is neutral that they tell me pokestop, Portal, mushroom, etc. I see everything, mentally, as wayspot or POI, since here the bias of the idiosyncrasy of the game of origin also appears.
D) Something like “There are no pokestops here” is a statement of fact, not a request. Several examples have already been mentioned regarding this point. Maybe it sounds like legalism but, in my perspective and, taking into account the very long backlog in many areas of all countries, it can be a personal assessment of a very real situation in many proposals (especially if the proposer is very new in propose and the first thing he wants to do, in good faith, is that other players do not have so many difficulties to be able to play in his region).
Things that could be done or improved:
Finally: the wayfarer system works because a democracy exists here, no vote becomes an acceptance or a rejection without a certain set of individuals voting or evaluating a certain proposal, democracy is not perfect, but it is the best system we know for decision making. We are supposed to be blind to some things in a way. We must be blind to playing Ingress, pokemon go, peridot or any other game, whether it is mentioned or not. And, again I say it, this is a humble opinion, no one is obliged to accept it as if it were written in the proverbial “Tables of the law.”
Because this thread will never close, I’ll feel free to ask another question 
@Itsutsume, how do you think a rule should be formulated so that everyone interprets it in the same way as the ambos do here?
The rule about requests?
Considering that most requests I’ve seen were “Need more Pokestops”, “Not enough Pokestops here for many PoGo players”, “No Pokestops in this area” and considering that apparently “Please approve” doesn’t seem to be considered a request either, I’d suggest the following addition:
No one offered me money or held my cat hostage just yet, so I will leave out @Glawhantojar’s examples for now.