Deletion of Quantum field of magnet

Comment: this seems like original research, or is something described in a single 2018 paper that hasn't been sufficiently reviewed by the scientific community.  The other references don't seem to refer to the subject of this article.  The abstract of Markoulakis et al. doesn't explain how the "quantum field" is different than the classical magnetic field (which does exist in 3 dimensions, not just 2 dimensions).  The page creator's (repeated) claim that this proves something regarding magnetic monopoles is both unsourced and , and without better sourcing (much better than a single research paper, which is a |primary source here) must be excluded
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:PSTS)

Comment: Self-promotion of work that appears to take a grade-school demonstration with iron filings as the scientific state of the art while claiming that textbook explanations of dipole fields will all have to be revised. Far |too soon
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: I just saw this revision of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quantum_field_of_magnet&oldid=852060916. There are references that can be considered  as they have a small number of citations. The subject in general seems no to be . '''Quantum field of a magnet''' seems like a  title
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:NOTABLE||WP:BULLSHIT)

Comment: classic case of trying to use WP as a news outlet to generate coverage for scientific findings, when what we do is report on existing coverage by other sources. Plus, this is not an uncontroversial area, and commentary, verification, criticism, and (if found valid) uptake by the scientific community are required to demonstrate that this is not a flash in the pan, or a blind alley. In contrast to claims by the above editor, the article's subject is not an established or accepted result yet ("possible existing" gives a hint here). In summary, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: The current version sets the article scope as "the characteristic field pattern of a magnet shown when observed with a superparamagnetic ferrolens", but that doesn't make sense as an article scope. We have an article on ferrolens (whether we ''should'' have that article is a separate debate), and we have many articles on magnets and magnetic field lines and magnetic domains, but the ''intersection'' of those two areas doesn't make sense as an article. It would be like making an article on the topic: "The star Vega when observed with a Herschelian telescope", or "Peltier cooling when observed with an infrared thermometer." Or in other words, if the ferrolens reveals something important and not previously known about the B-field lines or H-field lines of a magnet (which by the way I ''strongly'' doubt), then we should make sure that the myriad wikipedia articles on magnets and magnetic field lines and domain walls are accurate in light of that information. But we shouldn't have this article. I also agree with the various other complaints on this page, particularly  and lack of notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: this is a good example of a  and  created article, if ever an article should have gone through the   process it would have been this one, and the good editors there would have given appropriate advice/assistance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:COI||WP:AFC)

Comment: per  and  and honestly the conversation has done more to solidify my position in that direction than not. &#123;&#123;u&#124
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:COI)

Comment: per . While a potentially interesting area of study, until more research has been completed, an article is not justified. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: as insufficiently-discussed and possibly fringe theory. Too close to  for encyclopedic inclusion a this time. I would respectfully advise {{u|Markoulw}} to read ,  and , and to refrain from further criticizing other editors participating in this discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:AGF||WP:COI||WP:BLUDGEON)