Hi, maybe I can try to provide some context for why this interaction went the way it went.
- I have not researched the details as unfortunately it would be hard for me language-wise, but what you are describing looks like something that should not be approved. You are right in that it likely doesn’t meet eligibility criteria.
- Wayspots on the territory of areas with limited access (eg. businesses) are not inherently ineligible as long as they are accessible to someone (on top of that, this seems to be outside of the business).
- I know this is disappointing, but removal criteria usually include major issues such as being a fake or being on single-family private residential property. These criteria do not include the wayspot being simply ineligible, like yours. There is frequently a lot of discussion on this forum regarding whether removal criteria and eligibility criteria should be aligned, or regarding the generic wayspots that cannot get removed as a result. You can check for example one such thread here. Niantic! Stop approving ineligible, boring, generic Wayspots!
This is why we always say not to trust approved wayspots or rulings on this forum as references for your own nominations (these could be erroneously approved, approved through abuse, approved historically with a very different set of criteria, etc), but only the official criteria. I understand you are being ironic but I would suggest not telling your community to assume those things as this can backfire. 