It may have lost its planetary status in 2006, being demoted as a ‘Trans-Neptunian Object’ of the Kuiper Belt, but there are many reasons as to why Pluto still deserves to be considered a planet. According to the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a there are three criteria a celestial body must meet to be considered a planet: that it orbits a star, is large enough to pull itself into a round shape by its own gravity, and that it clears its orbit of other objects (gravitationally dominant)- the last of which Pluto fails to meet. However, it can be argued that the IAU criteria is flawed as it focuses too much on the activity of the planet, rather than the planet itself (the geophysical argument)- which after all, according to University College London, is what planetary science is about [1]. As physicist Phillip Metzger states, it is like saying ‘a tiger is not a mammal unless it’s able to clear away all the other predators on the island where it lives’ [2]. In addition to this, the IAU criteria is often applied inconsistently by many scientists, who call many celestial bodies ‘planets’ despite them not fitting the three rules- if this is the case, why is Pluto more often than not excluded from being called a planet? Also, there is much dispute regarding whether the IAU rules of planetary status are even necessary, as they have little impact on the study of astronomy. As well as the scientific side of things, Pluto should be considered a planet purely as an act of appreciation as it is widely admired on the internet as an underdog, and by schoolchildren: after Pluto was demoted in 2006, many children wrote to institutions such as the Natural History Museum expressing their concern [3]. Pluto’s importance was also bolstered after data was gathered through the New Horizons flyby in 2015, which revealed that Pluto was actually ‘far more complex’ and larger than scientists first thought. The New Horizons principal investigator, Alan Stern, also refuted the IAU after this venture, stating that the only reason why Pluto lost its planetary status was due to its distance from the sun, and that if Earth was in its place, it would also be excluded [4]. New Horizons also brought us high definition photographs of Pluto for the first time, showing off its dynamic colours of blue, deep red and yellow, gaining even more admiration on the internet. So, due to it’s fame and importance to both humans and the solar system, Pluto definitely deserves it’s full planetary status back. [1] UCL Department of Space and Climate Physics, n.d. [https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mssl/research/solar-system/planetary-science/what-planetary-science] [2] Denise Chow in *Mach*, September 21, 2018 [https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/should-pluto-be-planet-again-new-study-reignites-contentious-debate-ncna910836] [3] Calla Cofield in *Space.com*, July 13, 2015 [https://www.space.com/36214-planet-definition-includes-pluto-most-moons.html] [4] Lauren Kent in *CNN Space and Science*, August 24, 2019 [https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/24/world/pluto-no-longer-planet-space-scn/index.html]

It's understandable why scientists Pluto should be reconsidered as a planet. But I feel like the only way Pluto can be considered a planet again is if any and all dwarf planets could be considered a planet. The most blatant reason, I should point out first, that Pluto is not considered a planet is because of its mass. Pluto is much smaller than all the other eight planets in the solar system. Astronomers argued against Pluto's classification as a planet because of the discovery of objects known as the Kuiper Belt. The most notable was the dwarf planet Eris, which turned out to be slightly bigger than Pluto. According to NASA's website, Pluto is smaller than the Earth's own Moon (https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-pluto-k4.html). Therefore, classifying Pluto as a planet by its mass would mean classifying Earth's own Moon as a planet. But the real reason Pluto was struck from being categorized as a planet came when the International Astronomical Union presented three criteria for objects in space to be labelled as a planet. Firstly, an object had to orbit the sun. Secondly, the object had to be massive enough for the force of its own gravity make it round. Thirdly, the one that knocked Pluto from its categorization, the object must clear "the neighborhood around its orbit". (https://www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto/) That last definition, admittedly, is pretty vague but Joseph Stromberg clarifies that the last definition meant that "a planet can't be part of a cloud of similarly sized debris, like the asteroid belt or the Kuiper belt. A planet has to be large enough that over time it'll clear this cloud away, with the debris coalescing to the planet due to the force of the object's gravity." (Stromberg, Vox). Pluto was found to be part of a cloud of debris Pluto's creation, scientists found, was too different from the other eight planets and too similar to the other dwarf planets. Of course, Pluto could be reconsidered a planet of the the IAU reconsidered its criteria for objects in space to be defined as a planet. A simple way would be to nix the third criteria. But that could lead to an overwhelming classifications of objects in space as planets, which could include Earth's own moon. CITATIONS: “International Astronomical Union | IAU.” IAU, 2006, www.iau.org/public/themes/pluto. Stromberg, Joseph. “Sorry, Pluto: You're Really Not a Planet.” Vox, 13 July 2015, www.vox.com/2015/4/16/8420813/pluto-not-a-planet. “What Is Pluto?” NASA, 2 Nov. 2017, www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-pluto-k4.html.

**Pluto is still a planet, just a small one** - Pluto is classified as a ['dwarf planet'](https://earthsky.org/human-world/pluto-dwarf-planet-august-24-2006/) - From the etymology of the term 'dwarf planet' is suggests that Pluto is a planet just a smaller one, why does the size matter