Indeed so.
However this spin quantum number allows calculation of dipole moments, angular momentum and so on, whcih are classical properties exhibited by those same particles (in conjunction with fundamnetal constants such as the charge on the electron - a fundamental particle.).
This is how ESR (electron spin resonance) spectroscopy works.
Interesting...
TL;DR: It seems that it's still nope. Also,
QM is really weird.
However...
I think there's a lot of naming confusion in QM because of the history behind the move towards QM from classical physics, but I see where you're coming from and it's really interesting to consider each case and see how those might relate to the classical phenomena. I did some surface level digging to try and find some information.
- Electric dipole moment:
I think the smallest candidates for "classical" electric dipole moments are hadrons (like protons and pions), which have size and shape, so that's fine.
What about electrons? I noticed there's a wikipedia page on electron electric dipole moments (!) After some reading, it seems to be a measurement effect because some of the possible Feynman diagrams that describe the possible sets of measured states involve virtual quarks, so it's a really weird indirect effect that can result in an incredibly weak measured dipole moment. There's some heavy QM there that I don't understand, but I've encountered indirect stuff like this before (e.g. photon-photon interactions caused by photon shadowing) so it seems plausible to me at least that something like that can happen.
That's still pretty remarkable!
- Angular momentum:
Yes... all particles, as well as fundamental particles, have sets of possible measurable angular momentum quantum numbers, J, based on their spin angular momentum, L and their intrinsic spin, S. There's also the isospin quantum number, which is related to angular momentum. After some digging I came across the following:
What is spin?
American Journal of Physics
54, 500 (1986);
https://doi.org/10.1119/1.14580
Hans C. Ohanian
Unfortunately it's behind a paywall, but the abstract seems to suggest that size and shape are not required even for angular momentum at the particle level. It's really interesting though and I do wonder if QM has more surprises up its sleeve when it comes to classical concepts at very small spatial scales.