The "genealogical definition" standards here are a bit of a joke. The "sources that qualify" are only Vital Records, Published Genealogies/Histories, Census Records, and Published Obituaries.. Really? So if I have a published genealogy that says one thing and a probate file that says something else, in order for a profile to be genealogically defined I have to go with the published genealogy?
This is not a hypothetical question. According to the extremely unreliable 1861 Reed family genealogy (J. W. Reed, The Reed Family in England and America), the paternal ancestry of James5 Reed of Milton, Mass., was James4 James3 Obadiah2 Esdras1. But the probate file of James3 Reed makes it clean that his son James4 Reed had only one child, a daughter Mary. Further analysis of the information in that probate file along with a baptismal record together show that the correct ancestry of James5 Reed of Milton is Thomas4 James3 Obadiah2 Esdras1,
There are times when secondary sources are all that is available, and there are many secondary sources that are very reliable (though all do have errors). But to say that secondary sources are acceptable sources for declaring a profile "genealogically defined" and exclude primary sources probate records, deed, church records, etc., is ridiculous.