I have always felt Wittgenstein's work is a non-philosopher's (or a mediocre philosopher's) idea of outstanding philosophy. Wittgenstein wasn't universally inspirational.
I have not found in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations anything that seemed to me interesting and I do not understand why a whole school finds important wisdom in its pages. Psychologically this is surprising. The earlier Wittgenstein, whom I knew intimately, was a man addicted to passionately intense thinking, profoundly aware of difficult problems of which I, like him, felt the importance, and possessed (or at least so I thought) of true philosophical genius. The later Wittgenstein, on the contrary, seems to have grown tired of serious thinking and to have invented a doctrine which would make such an activity unnecessary. I do not for one moment believe that the doctrine which has these lazy consequences is true. I realize, however, that I have an overpoweringly strong bias against it, for, if it is true, philosophy is, at best, a slight help to lexicographers, and at worst, an idle tea-table amusement. - Bertrand Russell
Another analogy, Wittgenstein is the equivalent of fast food in the philosophy world. Ubiquitous but not super rich in quality, whatever nourishment you can find there, you can find from other earlier philosophers if you look hard enough (notably Indian philosophers from millennia ago [1]).
Funnily, your criticism of not citing Wittgenstein also applies to Wittgenstein not citing Easter philosophers.
[1] https://www.britishwittgensteinsociety.org/various-aspects-o...