For me, calling an album a "classic" has a lot to do with the personal relationship you have with an album. For me, The '59 Sound is a "classic" album already but I can understand why a lot of people would disagree. That was the first CD I bought when I had my own car. I developed a relationship with that album so to me, it's on that level. I am reluctant to call things released very recently a "classic," though. There are certain album that I think will hold up very well over time - usually when I think that, I'll include it in my review of the album - but I wouldn't call them classics right off the bat. The Kanye record may very well hold up and become a great album in that genre, but I don't think we should call it a classic until we can look back upon it and see its true reach and influence. If you want to call it a classic because of what it means to you personally, I suppose that's a different story...but it still hasn't been out very long.
That being said, I'm not opposed to dubbing certain albums as "classics" even though I don't enjoy them. I'm not a very big fan of The Beatles, but that doesn't mean they don't have classic albums. That goes for "scene" records from the early 2000s as well that I may not enjoy as much as others on this website.
It's a good article, but it's sites like Pitchfork that make modern music fans so apt to call out an album as a "classic" or total shit within a week of it coming out. They've become as synonymous for shaming indie bands as they are for anointing rising acts with a "Best New Music" tag, resulting in equally judgmental music fans. I think the only way this critical period of labeling music can be remedied is through music sites gearing less towards reviewing every new album and more constant, opinion-less streaming/featuring of artists they enjoy. People will likely feel less of a need to always have two cents on an album and be more interested in seeking out new artists and albums that they enjoy.