The author took the wrong takeaway.  Its not that everyone hates the idea of waiting until 70 on principle.  It is that he wrote a flawed and incomplete article advocating it, which did disservice to his overall argument.   

Even now, he suddenly has dropped their savings (saying that they have more than enough even under suboptimal) before announcing they'd run out of money at 85 without waiting for CPP.

It is stuff like this that make it feel like a cherry picked and oversimplified argument.  A specific income goal sweet spot  just over their age 70 CPP+OAS, savings in a window of 6-8 times the income goal.

It is very likely that for this specific example, even if properly presented, waiting for CPP is best. They have relatively low savings, so hedging against longevity makes sense.  But every example is different.   

Walking people through how to figure out how the math works for them would seem a much more useful article than constructing an example that simply may not apply.