The article limits itself to discussing “empirical paper”s not theoretical papers.
In a theoretical paper, it’s possible to make statements that stand on their own merits. In empirical science, a single paper is never really enough to support an entire field. Empirical sciences generally rely on the development of scientific consensus.
That seems like an artificial distinction made up for economics. In physics there are plenty of theory papers that make very clear and concise predictions. If these papers hold then they are very much both. E.g. the original special relativity paper goes out of its way to make predictions and calculations at the state of the art of the time, which are quite jarring today.
Dirac's early papers are, from what I have heard, amazing pieces of work. One commentary about the quality is given at https://michaelberryphysics.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/berr... .
These papers are not exhaustive summaries of a field. But a reader comes away understanding the type of problems a field is devoted to solving and many of the existing ideas. And I believe that each is a paragon of their field.