This certainly is a back track from your original argument, which was: “Schonemann is not cited enough.” Now your argument is “So what if Schonemann is cited?” I think you should make up your mind.  

 Further, I did not decide to write an article for Wahlsten or Dweck, I have written one for Peter Schonemann. Whether Dweck or Wahlsten have Wikipedia pages is not any of my concern. Peter Schonemann is a very notable scholar, especially where technical expertise is relevant (this is indisputable) and this is the reason why I have written the article. 

 Personally, I believe you are more impressed by the novelty of a scholar than the quality – Coincidentally, Dr. Phil has a following of millions, should this also qualify him as a seriously scholar? You have also demonstrated noticeably inconsistent criticisms, riddled by multiple excuses and poor methodology. Your arguments do not appear thorough nor warranted, but simply invoked.