You can't delete things on the internet- content is mirrored, and popular posts like that are quoted, copied, and scraped across the internet. There's no risk of the post disappearing.
However, when they're in a meeting with the head of Match and their team, it'd be pretty dickish to keep the post up. It's rude. Removing it removes friction between the teams, is a nice peace offering, and in the end changes nothing- the post is instantly mirrored.
If removing the article "changed nothing", it would still be up. The idea was to make it harder for people to find the article. Sure, someone who realizes that the article was purposely removed and that there are a multitude of copies hosted on other sites will be able to find it, but others (perhaps with less technical acumen) will not.
Now this way, it is getting attention for existing and for being squelched. Twice the press! Bravo.
How are you so confident what is "right" here? I believe I have a right to take my own blog posts down for whatever reason I choose, up to and including raw caprice. This isn't a moral wrong, this is just someone doing something you don't agree with. It's fine that you don't agree with it, but I in fact strongly disagree this is a wrong; that's a claim that nobody has a right to take their own material back off the internet, which I submit is just silly.