File talk:StanJonesLibertarian2006.jpg

Replaceable non-free use
I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that a non-free image of the subject will not be obtainable simply because the subject is retired and no longer in the public eye. since in some cases a WP:PERMISSION email sent to the copyright holder of a photo or the subject of a photo has often led to a free equivalent image being acquired; so, it's not clear what efforts were made by the uploader to try an acquire a free image: simply searching the Internet for images when the subject is still living tends to be not considered sufficient enough.The other argument for keeping the photo is more interesting since it could be argued that the subject's skin condition is a reason for his notability, except perhaps that the subject's skin condition only seems to have become an issue because he was a candidate for public office. It might be hard to separate the two, but the skin condition is described as being permanent which seems to mean that a current image taken of the subject should also essentially be able to serve the same purposes of primary identification as a non-free one taken in 2006. The subject's skin doesn't look all that blue in a photo used in 2008 newspaper article,s this 2008 website screenshot or these C-Span videos, at least not to the degree of the person shown in this Wired article. If the subject's condition worsened so that his skin turned a much darker hue of blue like the person in the Wired article, then I think the non-free of that might be much better and easier to justify than the 2006 image that was uploaded if the purpose is to show the subject's skin condition. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)