Your source makes a distinction between “removing” books from the bible, and deeming them non-canonical. Yes, I’ll concede that Luther continued to publish them in the same volume as the rest of the bible... in exactly the same manner as which he published the Old Testament deuterocanonicals. Since I also described this practice as “removing” in the case of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals, any attempt to quibble with my description regarding the New Testament deuterocanonicals is semantical nonsense: the only point is that Luther vehemently claimed that they were not sacred scripture. And as to the assertion that Luther regarded them as beneficial to be read, one must also read the vehemence which he objected to them; if they lead one to soul-destroying doctrinal error, how can they be beneficial? Luther is merely trying to have it both ways as he described Jerome doing, but since he held opinions he could never attribute to Jerome, doing so was merely talking out of both sides of his mouth, as he was very prone to do. (Read him in reference to antinomianism, or his ecclesiology with reference to the Peasant’s Massacre.)
The 1545 Luther Bible has the same books as modern day Protestant Bibles. You can check it out on Biblegateway:
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/?action=getVersionInfo&vid=10
I will note James, Esther, Jude and Revelation are all there. The 1599 Geneva Bible also has all 27 NT books.
So I don’t see where the claim of 7 NT books were tossed by Luther.