He has the accolades to be in the discussion. I personally don't think he meets the benchmarks (simply doesn't have the team success), and outside of when he was battling injuries, I would have taken Crosby over him to build a team around. Possibly Malkin too (although, that one isn't as clear-cut for me). Unlike Gretzky and Mario (who overlapped) where there were times I would have taken Mario over Gretz (most of the mid to late 90's, and even in the early 90's it was a discussion), I can't say the same about Crosby and Ovi (unless I was asked when Crosby's career was in the balance around 2010 to 2012), but Ovi wasn't great in 2010-2011 or 2011-12 (I would have taken Malkin at that point as the best building block in the league at that point).
Now, I have no issue with people calling him generational, unlike other players I constantly see put up for discussion who I don't think have much of a case. He has 3 Harts, 2 other 2nd place finishes, and 3 Pearsons/Lindsey's. But, for me the deciding factors are the lack of team success in the league or internationally and the fact for most of his prime there were other players in the league I would take over him as building blocks. In my opinion, the only players who are in the discussion as generational who entered the league after Gretzky entered are Mario (clear cut generational for me), Hasek (debatable, but probably), Jagr (debatable, would lean against it), Ovechkin (debatable but probably not) and Crosby (debatable but probably). I personally don't think you can even enter the discussion unless you win a Hart Trophy or Pearson, and in general multiple. My favorite player from the last 15 years who isn't a Leaf is Malkin, and I wouldn't consider him heavily. This also leaves off a bunch of great names like Messier, Yzerman, Sakic, Forsberg, Lidstrom, Karlsson, Bourque, Roy, etc.