I don’t want to get into the whole Catholic-Lutheran argument, but I will say that anyone who uses Wikipedia as an authoritative source needs to rethink his research practices. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and while it can be a good general resource as a starting point, you should always regard what it says very warily. If you want to use something to support an argument, you should really use a source that people can agree is reliable and not subject to the kind of bias and inaccuracy for which Wikipedia is well known. Otherwise, even if you are 100% correct in your argument, people will discount it just because of your source...
Wikipedia is no longer a free-for-all it once was; the edits without proper sourcing are quickly removed and the user who abuses it get banned. Beside, if Salvavida is so sure of her opinion, she can go and edit and see for herself how long her unsubstantiated comment survives.
On the subject matter, all New Testaments prior to Luther contained the Deuterocanon, and of course contain it to this day in authentic Christian churches. There was an opinion shared by many that perhaps they should not be canonized as inspired, but the opposing view prevailed in the Church. Opinions are just that, opinions. The Councils of Carthage and Hippo (late 4th-early 5th Century) were the first to list the canonical New Testament books, the Deuterocanon is among them:
The catalogues of Hippo and Carthage are identical with the Catholic Canon of the present
Since that time, there was no controversy in the Church, and prior to that there was no settled canon in general. At issue in the African Councils was the Epistle to the Hebrews, not the Deuterocanon.