Why this is not accpeted

First, anyone can put a label on Google Maps. That does not prove anything.

Second, I found the link and it does not appear to be a school at all. I think that rejection reason was incorrect, but they were being safe. https://upinnovacioneducativa.com.ar/

Third, I can’t find this sign on Maps. Does it even go with the business you said it goes with? Google AI is suggesting it goes with this company: https://goodjobindumentaria.com.ar/

And that would make sense from the Google Labels on the map. If they are correct.

This feels vaguely familiar. In a thread a while back someone said something was a university and it was actually a business offering services to other businesses and professionals. It was either this specific business or a very similar one.

yup, both work there and one is the complement of the other… if you know the building and the area, the company does all this thing… BOTH are complementary…and BOTH exist…so why is the reason of the rejection?

***Mod Edit to remove disrespectful phrase.

This is insulting. If you do not want our help, then don’t ask.

First frustrating though this is please remain respectful to fellow wayfinders, especially those trying to help.

As you said
“if you know the building and the area,”

The critical point is those reviewing do not know the building or area. It is the responsibility of the nominator to give all the information and context needed for a reviewer to understand fully what they are assessing.

This is why the helpful community members are asking questions and explaining the things you need to include.

Referring back to and elaborating on my original comment. The issue is not whether or not the sign exists, it clearly does. However, that alone is not enough to qualify, except (in my opinion) if the sign was a historical marker or was of artistic merit, neither of which is the case here.

Then we have to look at the eligibility of the location. This is clearly not a school for under-18s or a single family residence and it is safely pedestrian accessible. Any of those three would be a hard reject, but again, none of those are the case here.

So the question comes down to, the sign is being used to represent the building / tenants thereof. Do those meet the exercise, exploration, or socialization criteria? You would need to convince the reviewers of one of those three.