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