According to the talking heads on TV, the answer is a resounding no to the bolded.
He won't be considered one because he doesn't actively seek his shot regularly, and unless you come into the league as a 1-of-1 type player or are on a notable run of exceptional statistical excellence, winning basketball (which is what Haliburton plays, clearly) has absolutely NO bearing on one's superstar status in the eyes of said talking heads. It doesn't matter that Indiana is clearly not the same team if he doesn't impact the game.
Personally, I think Haliburton is the best floor-general archetype point man in the league. But while I think he's the best in the league at what he does, that doesn't matter when all the "best players" in the NBA are stat-stuffing, high-scoring forwards or guards who either have unlimited shooting range or are a likely 30-35 a night.
The one big thing working against Haliburton's case as a superstar is that his floor is wildly volatile, and he doesn't have superstar expectations. He will disappear on you in games offensively. If his baseline expectation is 20 points and 10 assists, then ideally, his floor would be around 12-14 points a night.
If you're the best player on a championship contender and a walking 20-10 at point, that should be superstar-worthy. There are a lot of players who could be considered superstars if the networks stopped putting the same teams on national TV games or forced their sports talk shows to discuss something beyond the same 4-6 topics. The Super Bowl location has more variance than what the likes of First Take discuss.
The wrong people control the narrative. Haliburton is the same player who was voted Most Overrated and people were like

only for it to come out that he got a leading 13 votes in the survey that determined this.