Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum field of magnet

Quantum field of magnet

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Quantum field of magnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTHERE. Currently a single-team (peer-reviewed) publication, no significant coverage elsewhere. I initially edited to redirect to ferrolens, but this was opposed. Lithopsian (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Pdnbtn.png

Don't bite the newcomers!

The above senior editor is abusive and very hostile and easy on the trigger...I submit. His/Her actions on both of my WP contributions are not noble in motivation to generally improve WP but just personal driven. In a matter of few hours he maliciously holding a personal vendetta, templated both of my contributions so far.

It started after the sudden deletion of my "Quantum field of magnet" page without any prior indication or communication, I understand that he/she has this right without any prior communication to delete the page but this is not proper way to handle newcomers which are certainly discouraged. Notice here that he/she passed clean the "ferrolens page" at his/her initial pass and just deleted a whitespace on this page.

Lithopsian thinks in some point that I have threaten him/her! Here is our communication: (Please Notice English is not my native language)

File:Revert the page QFM talk 23718.png

After that a downspiral begun with ever increasing abuse by him/her.

He/she templated the "ferrolens" page as COI ALTHOUGH HE/SHE PASSED IT CLEAN PRIOR HIS/HER PRIVATE VENDETTA WITH ME, WITH ONLY A WHITESPACE DELETE!! Miracously he/she changed his/her mind!!...

Because I told him/her and kindly asked him/her that I intend to upload an extended version of the "Quantum field of magnet" so he/she can reconsider and act and I would respect that now he templated this second contribution also for deletion, all that in matter of hours.

This is far fetched and too much work for an individual...

Definitely a WP:DBN for Lithopseira...and on the ABUSIVE SCALE to NEWCOMERS A BIG THUMPS UP!

Markoulw (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC) — Markoulw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• The article creator (Markoulw)'s username is a very close match to the first author (Markoulakis) of the publication cited 5 times in the article. Added WP:COI notices to Quantum field of magnet and Talk:Quantum field of magnet. — Newslinger talk 23:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC) Restored comment deleted by Markoulw. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C} 03:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment from user Newslinger was erased due to abusive, malice and ungrounded content. User Newslinger is a relative new user (18 April 2018) with no other credentials and real article full editing contributions apart of patrolling. He/her has no known credentials or other rights given by WP as it seems and also has no science expertise and related knowledge to contribute credible to this page.

His participation here seems suspicious and I believe it is a WP:COI on his/her behalf with the article or a WP venturer.

If this page continues on this malice and abusive uncredible path without discussing I will ask for arbitration from the administrators of WP.

Kind Regards, Markoulw Markoulw (talk) 01:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete 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 WP:FRINGE, and without better sourcing (much better than a single research paper, which is a primary source here) must be excluded. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Power~enwiki,

Thank you for your concise points and relevant to this page.

However, your decision for "delete" is unsustainable, unjustified and rush since as you mentioned you have read only the abstract of the prime source on the WP page. Also how you claim the other sources as irrelevant although you didn't read the prime source manuscript? Last the Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials is definitely not fringe science as you stated and a respected and one of the most specialized Journals in the field (IF: 3.046).

I will try to update the WP page in the next days with the pdf of the prime source.

Kind Regards, Markoulw (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Reader and fellow WP Editors,

The WP page "Quantum field of magnet" refers to an inherent characteristic of magnetic fields geometry shown and is apart from the ferrolens page because its potential significance for physics in general and academic research and development and as a possible candidate for magnetic monopoles.

It suggests the discovery of magnetic monopoles in essence inside every magnet. This is important and the Wikipedia community must be aware and can not be dismissed from this information. This page deserves its own space and will continue to expand with new information over time. Magnetic monopoles are a hot topic on academia and much more research will be carried out in the future.

However, I accept and agree with the characterization and solo categorization of this WP article, until proven otherwise, as a physics stub since this is a new relative research and proposal and as more related research to this candidate for magnetic monopoles is carried out it will be added in this WP article here until it becomes a regular category physics article.

Apart of the above I believe the article in its current update is a nice small concise well round cited stub article with potential to become a start class article in the future and therefore should be left as it is for the time being. And is also one of my first full editing undertaken in Wikipedia Encyclopedia and I wish to continue my contributions to WP and also with other topics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quantum_field_of_magnet

Kind Regards,Markoulw (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

________________

I did some changes on the main body text of the article as an act of good faith.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_of_magnet

Markoulw (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It's funny how Markoulw complains that they are being bitten as a newcomer but immediately turns on Newslinger and accuses them of abuse...

In regards to the article itself, I'm leaning delete for now as WP:TOOSOON. The one thing everyone agrees on is that this is a very new, little-researched field. Yes, it may have potential to expand, but let's write the article when it has expanded, not before.

Markoulw: it's tough having your hard work deleted, but please don't shout and accuse others of having a personal vendetta, especially when they don't. TeraTIX 11:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Editor Teratix,

Too soon is a weak argument in this case because the article under question relies not only at magnetic monopoles but also explains further an important property of the ferrolens thus viewing the quantum field of a magnet meaning apart of the field on its two poles also the part of the field around it Bloch domain wall which is a considered by science as a quantum effect and how is that made possible with the ferrolens and therefore one possible interpretation of the name "Quantum field of magnet" also used in the prime source of the research.

Also because the matter of magnetic monopoles is an open unsolved subject today in the science community and researchers in general, any bit of information and possible candidates in the theory and experimentation counts.

Please don't ask of how many TOOSOON articles WP has today as regular articles?

Again I submit the characterization and solo categorization of this article as a physics-stub and Stub Article with the appropriate tag is more than enough for the time being. Are this not why page characterizations are for?

Kind Regards, Markoulw (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

_______________

Teratix...also about the Newslinger matter you asked although I already answered.

Well, for one is sure me as a newcomer would have no any interest to act to another newcomer in WP. Specially the way he/she did with malice and viciously acting with ungrounded accusations and filing the place all over with multiple tag templates although a tag decision from a Senior Editor II was already there. I interpreted his/her actions as over the top and abusive and I can not understand how a fellow newcomer can act and treat an other newcomer like that without having a COI on his/her behalf or there is something else. Newslinger since 18 April 2018 he/she debuted in WP has done only patrolling and seems to have no physics expertise. I am interested only at long-term full editing in Wikipedia.

Markoulw (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as unsourced rubbish. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC).

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While a potentially interesting area of study, until more research has been completed, an article is not justified. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 12:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Changing to redirect as it appears to be a important aspect of ferrolens imaging. Possible partial merge of any quality content into a new section, which should not result in any attribution issues as content was largely created by one author. Similarly, any other common term for the concept should be redirected. Maybe in the future, if much more content is added, it can be considered for WP:SIZESPLIT — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 04:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Show Patience The article creator is working in good faith from his viewpoint, and this is not fringe science because APS has been published images since 2012 www.aps.org and the technology has been winning awards in 2018 ICM2018 Winning Poster. So basically you have a newer technology (magnetically controlled ferrofluid diffraction) that's been around for around ten years and is known the the scientific community. How many years and what size of consensus do you need to get a wiki page? Sirzerp (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)— Sirzerp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Those references do not support the notability of the specific topic of the article currently being discussed. XOR'easter (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - 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, WP:TOOSOON. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Xxanthippe,

Your "unsourced" statement would suffice. No need to insult people. This is a violation of the WP:HA policy. The article is well sourced and your one word argument has no ground and without any expertise credibility presented.

Markoulw (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Senior Editor and Arbitrator of the AFD Lithopsian,

Newslinger's post restored by Zchrykng (not participating yet in the discussion) is clearly a violation of the WP:HA policy and specially I quote "...Editors are warned, however, that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other. Posting such information on Wikipedia violates this policy." This post should be taken down and not taken into consideration I submit.

Markoulw (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Alpha3031,

Thank you for your input. Nevertheless, I already have explained the particular reasons why this article can not be considered as TOOSOON in my previous posts. However, as an act of good faith I am willing to drop any reference of the article to magnetic monopoles. After this the article under question presents and explains solely a particular important characteristic of the field view with the ferrolens device as shown by three academic research studies undertaken by different researchers, in a spawn of 10 years since 2008 (see references [1],[2] and [3] in the ferrolens article). Because I had to name inside the WP Quantum field article this particular field geometry presented, I have adopted the name presented from the most recent academic study which was a dedicated study on this exact matter.

Kind Regards, Markoulw (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@Markoulw: If it's a important property of the ferrolens specifically, maybe it could be appropriate to merge it into the main article ferrolens? It should be noted that notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article (though WP:V still does, obviously), and if it's an important property, WP:DUE would suggest a significant section in that article anyway. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 17:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Elmidae and All,

I don't know but I get the feeling that this is a delete thread where only delete people are coming in to say DELETE! without reading any arguments presented by the WP article editor and some others and just say DELETE DELETE DELETE... without really presenting any based anti-arguments.

As I said before deleting a page is the last option rather reforming it since I already have demonstrated good faith and I'm willing and it was unfortunate the Senior Editor acted so rashly out of his head without really giving me any other options like editing suggestions. He acted emotionally because he misunderstood my intentions and wording (English is not my native language).

This page should not really be here in a delete threat, it is well rounded written in scientific language but at the same kept simple and concise so anyone can understand, proper referenced and linked page to the ferrocell device which is more than 10 years around now in the public domain and Academic community with publications from respected Science Journals, over 12,000 hits on google and over 5,000 videos on youtube. The quantum field of magnet WP page explains further as a separate page the special same field geometry of magnets shown constantly from ferrolens devices all around the world and three academic studies from different research teams undertaken over a spawn of 10 years.

I believe the QFM page deserves its own space as a Scientific observation and characteristic, a linked page as countless other WP pages do rather than putting all the information there is, in one page which becomes unreadable and tiresome for the casual WP reader.

So how more notability and time spawn is needed?

I have tried to include all the information I could find in a concise and understandable way. If anyone can do better he/she is more than welcome but please don't delete this page. It is linked to the ferrolens page.

In the next days before the consensus is reached if I continue to see this kind of routine and cynical attitude on this panel here with ungrounded accusations, insults, unkindness (you never greed here!! what is this place here?..., no one says Regards, or Thank you!) rude behavior, some have already violated a dozen of WP policy rules, non-existing Arbitration (Lithopsian?). I have already have spend too much time answering to people who are not really credible on the subject and just drop in to say DELETE!!... without really any suggestions to make...

... I will declare this panel UNFIT for consensus and ask for administration attention.

Kind Regards, Markoulw (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

___________________________

Dear Alpha3031,

quote: @Markoulw: If it's a important property of the ferrolens specifically, maybe it could be appropriate to merge it into the main article ferrolens? It should be noted that notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article (though WP:V still does, obviously), and if it's an important property, WP:DUE would suggest a significant section in that article anyway. — Alpha3031 (talk | contribs) 17:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the first creative post I've got in this panel here. Thank you Alpha for your kindness and understanding and logic. Although this is an good idea initially there are are some points I made in my post above why I don't wanted this information included in the ferrolens page. Also after the hostility I have encountered here as a newcomer, I don't think this is a good idea anymore. However, if the consensus of the panel ask me to, I will respect that and do it.

Again thank you for your suggestion.

Kind Regards, Markoulw (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

_____________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markoulw (talk • contribs) 18:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Elmidae,

quote: ...is not an established or accepted result yet ("possible existing" gives a hint here)

You are twisting my words! The correct and complete sentence I've used is:

"Quantum field of a magnet refers to a possible existing lowest magnetic potential, flux of the field of a magnet shown with a superparamagnetic ferrolens."

It is a theory which is experimentally proven by one method. In science a theory to become established decades can pass and must be confirmed by many methods and different independed sources. Therefore it is a common practice to write the Word "possible" in science.

On the other hand if we take seriously your assumption and criterion then we must get rid half of the science articles in Wikipedia starting with the Big Bang theory...

Kind Regards, Markoulw (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

___________________________

Markoulw (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

---

• Probably WP:TROLLING. Incomprehensible heureka article that reads like it were made with SCIgen. The paper it cites from is full of lurid language you'd expect from a bazaar vendor, not from a physicist: "... However, latest developments ... reveal ... intriguing ... with surprising new findings ... change our perspective ... " If it supports the notion of magnetic monopoles, it should be added there. Unfortunately, Wikipedia mirrors the current deluge of scientific papers. --46.189.28.247 (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Dear 46.189.28.247,

Last time I have checked for the word trolling I believe it is exactly what YOU ARE DOING HERE! You'r truly are a display of total ignorance (you never made it more than three lines of the abstract) and malice. Anonymous posting in an AfD panel with abusive content is against WP policy and since the Arbitrator Senior Editor of the AfD is nowhere to be found I will delete this post and any other anonymous made with abusive content and nothing really to suggest apart your concerns of Wikipedia that is.

...on a second taught I will leave your message on display to make my point more clear for the UNFIT AfD panel when the Administrator comes.

Markoulw (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as insufficiently-discussed and possibly fringe theory. Too close to WP:OR for encyclopedic inclusion a this time. I would respectfully advise Markoulw to read WP:AGF, WP:COI and WP:BLUDGEON, and to refrain from further criticizing other editors participating in this discussion. — JFG ^talk 22:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

To All,

I have complied to the request of deleting any monopole references and text in the WP article. Added references to the article.

A preprint of the reference [1] inside the QFM WP article can be now found publicly available for download at the Cornell University Library arXiv:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.08751 (pdf download)

or here from NASA/ADS Astrophysics Data System:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?arXiv:1807.08751

I will update later reference [1] with the arxiv pdf link.

Kind Regards, Markoulw (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Senior Editor II JFK,

How can published research be WP:OR really escapes me. What are your physics expertise arguments your base upon your critic?

quote:

"I would respectfully advise Markoulw to read WP:AGF, WP:COI and WP:BLUDGEON, and to refrain from further criticizing other editors participating in this discussion."

Exactly, if only this goes also for the other Editors as well participating in the discussion. I have only responded politely to their [WP:HA]

violations. What you have to say about that? I didn't hear anything about that from you?

I feel abused as a newcomer and if this was a trial.

Until now I have heard only one creative comment.

There is no need for AfDs really just you DO straight DELETE. This is a parody.

Unfortunately if Wikipedia Editors with many years long of experience can not protect newcomers from such fallacy taking place there is no other option left for me in the absence of any arbitration here than to ask for administration attention.

This is the last response of me in the AfD page.

Shalom שָׁלוֹם Markoulw (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Dear Markoulw, thanks for your reply; I will attempt to clarify my own comments. The reason some participants mention WP:OR is because you wrote this article essentially by citing your own research into the subject. Indeed, your paper was published, but that is not a sufficient bar to create an encyclopedic article about it. The subject matter should attract enough commentary and secondary citations before it can be considered for inclusion. Finally, please rest assured that most Wikipedians, including myself, have nothing personal against you or against new editors; rather we aim to help all participants get familiar with our policies and guidelines, in order to deliver the most relevant content for the benefit of our readers. — JFG ^talk 01:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I endorse the comment above and add that an article on a physics topic is unlikely to be supported unless it is cited by a substantial number of peer-reviewed independent sources. That is why I have put a prod on Ferrolens.Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC).

The WP:Prod that I put on Ferrolens has been removed by User:Markoulw without explanation, and I have been "warned" on my talk page by User:Markoulw. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC).

An interesting edit history of prods on Ferrolens. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC).

Delete: I just saw this revision of the article [1]. There are references that can be considered WP:TOOSOON as they have a small number of citations. The subject in general seems no to be WP:NOTABLE. Quantum field of a magnet seems like a WP:BULLSHIT title. --MaoGo (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Delete 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. XOR'easter (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Just dropped in to "vote". Don't feel threatened by me. I had to come back here because I left without casting my "vote" (I know it is not a vote but anyway)

• Keep I submit. for the reasons stated by me and others in this AFD and also on the article talk page (I hereby bring them here, linked): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quantum_field_of_magnet. And these references are already thoroughly peer-reviewed and any personal opinion against them someone may have from a brief sweep of an abstract or the WP QFM article, expert or no expert, without really studying the subject for an extended period of time, little to no matters their credibility. All it is really, is if someone would WP:SPEAKROUTASS. We are not here to criticize the references articles content.. but the WP article. And attacking the referenced articles in order to hurt the credibility of the WP article I submit is a fine strategy of course but I don't buy it... SO KEEP!!...

Kind Regards, 147.95.130.109 (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)