No this discovery won't prompt debate over the definition of a planet. That's your idea, Mr. NYT reporter
These thoughts coming from a journalism school graduate.
They should be qualified in their fields before making such predictions,
or at least include a disclaimer that it is just the writers thoughts.
OH Hell, its just the NYT's, home of Jayson Blair what can we expect....ha ha ha
No, I think he's right. Right now planets can be said to be defined by roster. That is, a planet is whatever somebody decides to call a planet.
Most planets have orbits near the ecliptic plane, with relatively low ecentricity. Pluto fails these tests, its orbit is inclined with respect to the ecliptic plane and it has a relatively eccentric (oval vs. round) shape.
Pluto's discovery was an anomaly. Many astronomers have wanted to remove it from the Canon for years. I think there will be resistance to adding more planets. I suspect anything found orbiting the Sun from now on will be classified as a Kuiper Belt object (or similar definition), Pluto will retain his status as a planet as a matter of tradition (since 1929!) but with the qualification that he's the only planet who is also (read: "actually") a Kuiper Belt object.
There are qualifications for being a journalist?
The associations of astronomers do consider such things, but they know it is a low priority and doesn't matter at all.
Awww Heck....change the definition of "planet" for any future planets discovered but let's just "grandfather Pluto" in as one of the original planets for old times sake...it will save time and money not having to reprint all those journals and books....(sarcasm lol)