3rded this for sure. I mean, there certainly are people out there would agree with OP, but it's a small portion of the general or educated population that would, especially in this already "opinion/taste based" debate. There are so many examples in this thread. There might be a way of having his answer be correct with an asterisk, but I don't know what that asterisk guideline would be.
Top Discography as comparative battlegrounds is a fairly vague topic also. Beatles/Stones/Zeppelin/Dylan/Floyd are generally the popular consensus/"rock consensus" there, Elvis/Elton/Madonna/Michael Jackson might be in the discussion if you lean pure pop or even the general population's tastes possibly(although Elvis might be 'aging out'), and as touched upon there are numerous other bands/artists in consideration, even other genres, that have arguably "epic" or "transcendent" albums for various reasons.
But that's ultimately just a fallacious appeal to popularity, accessibility, narrative authority, lowest common denominator average perception, and pop culture relevance, which are undeniable with those "consensus" bands for sure, but I really don't see what's objectively compelling about that when it comes to what we ought to think about actual greatness.
I mean, look at what those standards suggest about modern acts-- Why are we happy to apply those same clearly faulty standards to the 60s and 70s, dripped with historical bias, nostalgia, and non-music-based sentiment? If anything, it's an unlikely outlier that The Beatles, Stones, or Zeppelin are as popular as they are given how good they actually are (and it's driven by numerous other factors that have nothing to do with how good their music is, such as fashion, marketability, charisma, accessibility, being at the right place and time doing the right thing, etc.)-- it shouldn't be viewed as a correlation that suggests anything about their level of greatness by any means.
If we want to label them as clearly the most iconic bands of all time, on this basis, sure, that would be pretty fair and I would go along with that argument (The Rolling Stones are clearly far more iconic than Joy Division). But that's a very different idea altogether.
While there obviously isn't really an objectively satisfying way to measure how great a band is in general, this "more verifiable" method is certainly an invalid and irrational one, and when you remove it from consideration, the lines become very blurred, ambiguous, and dependent on what qualities one actually finds meaningful and valuable.
In my view, the term "greatness" has much more appropriate meaning if it's used to refer to the artists that we think deserve the most credit rather than the artists that happen to get it for a multitude of reasons (some relevant but many irrelevant).
