The article implies that Pluto and Ceres should be considered planets, but doesn't seem to actually present any points in favour of calling Pluto and Ceres planets other than "I don't like the current definition". The argument that if the Earth were in the place of Pluto it wouldn't clear its neighbourhood is presented again, but only supported by "some astronomers would argue", and to my knowledge it would actually quite quickly disassemble the orbital structure of its neighbourhood, booting out or absorbing everything that doesn't end up stuck in a resonance or trojan orbit, and leave itself all alone again.
I dislike the argument on whether or not Pluto should be a planet. It's not, it doesn't affect planetary dynamics like planets do (the argument that location shouldn't matter is silly, if Ganymede wasn't gravitationally bound to Jupiter it would likely be considered a planet, but no one is arguing against calling it a moon), but it really shouldn't matter what we call it. It's still a remarkable celestial body just as worthy of study of any planet or moon, and continuing to dredge up this argument a decade later is just restricting conversations about Pluto to a single tired track.
