

Does that describe this person though?
http://babsonhistorical.org/faqs/
He wrote a still useful genealogy (Babson family) but his profession was entrepreneur millionaire / philanthropist, not professional genealogist.
Often these books are one off. But in my areas, it's really helpful to know who wrote "The Kellogg book," "The Chase genealogy," etc. Family member? For hire? Etc. Etc.
There is potential here for a lot of unnecessary confusion.
Professional = paid for work.
Published is a different category. The overwhelming number of genealogical books and articles, both now and historically, have been self-published or privately published by people who are not professionals.
There is no meaningful correlation between profession and publication.
So what would be the most useful project name for what I’m looking to identify? I agree with Sharon’s point that us researchers / family historians don’t qualify (we can be honored elsewhere), but “prominent” seems to exclude a good category. And I would be fine with including the “prominent” and “the professionals” in the same project.
I really don't object to being honoured for this labour of love :-) We've probably all researched enough info for geni to make up four books each! If I'm not now a genealogist then I don't know what would make me one, but the set of all the people who fall into that category could easily then include all the Curators and active managers on Geni. We may as well call it Geni - and we have that 'project' already! :-)
Exclude the living? Or - my preference - not exclude anyone, just call the project "Genealogists.". So I have a place to put dear late Marvin Caulk "and also" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Branch_Cabell (who was a better novelist than genealogist, but his genealogy is not bad and certainly more fun to read than most); and also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Lines_Jacobus
And I would look forward to learning about genealogists I don't know.
One general rule I use as an editor is that when a title or caption is difficult to find it's often because there is some fuzziness about the goals and content.
Here, it seems pretty clear we have a blend of goals that aren't entirely compatible. First, we're looking for a standard reference location for the famous genealogists we all encounter in our work. But second, we're trying to use it also to recognize any genealogist we think needs 15 seconds of fame. (Were we talking about Vanity on Geni? Oh my.)
How we choose to approach the problem is going to have a substantial amount of subjectivity, but I would suggest these two goals, although related, really call for different projects.
Maybe Miscellaneous ;)
Here's where I get tripped up. When I look at the project I see many very prominent genealogists along with some Geni curators. Is being a curator really put someone in the same league as Horace Round or Sir Anthony Wagner? Or even in the same category as someone like Everett Stackpole (who hasn't even been added, despite being one of the mainstays of Early American genealogy).
I don't think so. It turns the project into just a vanity project.
A few years ago, someone told me he was going to add me to this project. As flattering as that might be, it would be over the top. I'm a hard-working genealogy, and a professional genealogist, and a published genealogist, but by no stretch of the imagination am I prominent or notable or anything like that.
But maybe this project really is more about vanity. If that's the general sense, I'm okay with that as long as we all see it and acknowledge it.
It takes a tiny edit - the USA listing of ME (GONE) and a couple of others. Change the top from “prominent genealogists” to “genealogist of note.”
I’m thinking that phrase because (at least to me) notable implies a degree of fame people whose profiles I would like to have as a reference may not have in the real world.
This would also open up the profile to more well enough known MP living profiles who probably wouldn’t call themselves famous but fit the criteria of “we should know their work.”