Sr. Lomapaseo,
I do not think that the article is misleading at all. There are just 2 different design concepts for taking care of the longitudinal and transversal loads during normal operation:
Boeing accepts that an engine might leave the wing with no redundancy if an attachment bolt fails. They claim that they designed it in a way that it does not damage the fuel tanks inside the wing during separation. The pictures on the Norwegian website show that the concept worked. The flip side is that they rely on competent maintenance teams to check in short intervals regularly the bolts and replace them with (costly) genuine OEM parts, if they detect any flaws.
Airbus on the other hand makes it under all circumstances a permanent attachment by designing redundancy in.
Both concepts are approved by the authorities on both sides of the pond, so there is not a good and a bad one, also proven by millions of incident free flights.
Your hint at the Iberia Quito incident is misleading indeed. It prooves that the Airbus concept can withstand also design loads outside of the operating enveloppe. Please note that both engines are still on wing, although at some strange unpreferred angles.
Comparing both design concepts I personally do not want to leave especially Quito in a 777 dumping one engine on the runway.
Frank