People don’t like that definition of planet because it’s terrible. Which is my point about the last criteria. If in order for it to be considered a planet it has to have absorbed the majority of all material then double planets can’t be planets, because they haven’t.

What about a planet that also has a large mass at its L3 point, can either of those objects be a planet if the other object also exists?

If a planet gets ejected from its star system, what is it now, a very large asteroid?

This definition of planet is problematic because it’s transitory and largely relies on factors that don’t have material effects on the object. Spherical objects can form in interstellar space, a star is not required. We just think that planets tend to form around stars because they’re easier to see in that scenario.