Irrelevant. Address the science in the reference.
I'm well aware of "Current Contents" and the concept of the "citation index". Frankly, I think that idea of trying to "measure the importance" of a science article is simply bullshit. Popularity does not equal importance.
"Being archived on someone's personal website doesn't count for much."
Again irrelevant. The article is from a legitimate peer reviewed journal. The fact that a copy or copies exist at places other than in the printed pages of the paper journal means precisely nothing, despite your desperate efforts to sell the idea that the existence of such somehow invalidates the published science. Clue....it doesn't.
Doesn't it ever bother you to be so dishonest?? I simply can't imagine anyone with a legitimate technical education acting as you do.
When are you going to address it, rather than providing links to bottom tier articles from bottom tier journals copy and pasted to someone's personal website?