There should be some discussion about what qualifies a character for inclusion in the list. At the moment, it seems like any character who has ever gambled could be included, even if calling the character a "gambler" would be puzzling to most people. I would argue that inclusion should be limited to characters who are known primarily for being gamblers by trade (e.g., leads in poker movies) or for whom it is a primary character trait (e.g., Jame Bond, addicts, and so on). The category should not include a character just because they have gambled at some point (e.g., a character in a TV show or cartoon that did so just in one or two episodes). Jason Quinn (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
