I have a few questions about these profiles. It is a weird method to go and skeleton out a bunch of unknowns, but it does make a kind of sense for a private database where you're not wasting WikiTree-IDs due to the LNAB-URL mapping.
My grandfather told me that my great grandfather had seven siblings, and he knew the name of his father and one of his uncles. I wouldn't know the names, locations, or dates of birth or death for any of these siblings, but the fact that I know the relation and rough count of them is actually useful information that can be enough to fill in the blanks. Especially, once I had found the parents of my great grandfather.
So it would be definitely a conclusive error if the profile had no relations, no name, no birth date or no death date, and no locations associated with them. That would be a fully ambiguous set of conditions that couldn't be used to reconstruct the missing information. Having at least one of the siblings with unambiguous vital information, a count of how many siblings there should be, and at least one of the parents with unambiguous vital information would be the minimum conditions for disambiguating the unknowns in this bunch if I am not mistaken; you're looking for a triangulation of data, so it is analogous to solving different cases of a triangle; relationships can be thought of being like angles, and vital data can be thought of like the sides; you want to create an enclosure with known internal angles.
I do think that it is useful to classify the grouping of vital fields as an error in that it draws attention to what amounts to a largely unsolved puzzle. Also, I didn't see anything in the profiles I looked at which indicated why there are so many unknowns, so I don't necessarily think the person managing the profiles knew exactly or even roughly how many siblings there should be. As a mostly impartial third party, there isn't sufficient information for me to clearly regard the conditions as unambiguous or functionally complete in this specific case.