Weird, you're right.

It definitely referenced it when I first read the article.

I wonder what the motivation would be for removing that reference.

EDIT: Note that I am not user "runn1ng"; I am corroborating what they referenced about the contents of the article

EDIT2: They even mentioned three-or-so specific forums or websites, or something.

They changed the link. It was pointing to another one that cited this one as the source and added -even more- speculation on top of it.

Here you go https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/11/21/hacker-erases-65...

This adds speculation and sensationalism on top of an ill informed article. They even defined it as a 0-day vulnerability, when it is obviously not the case as explained by the article itself. Can't simply trust the quality of the information in there.