I agree if wikipedia is not a receptacle for every piece of throwaway press However this piece is very different It relevant to the article and arguably key to it The article is about the song and the key information within it is where that song charted If we were to just present the song got to such and such we are not presenting the whole story The song may have charted lower than it did without those controversial actions The fact these allegations exist is key to how people interpret those chart placements This is not throwaway so and so might be dating so and so gossip mag trash Its been widely reported in reputable sources around the world and its fully cited in the article and the actions have been denounced by the head of the Billboard Chart It is key to how people interpret the article and has every place in an encylopedia The quotes I added to show the breadth of the critisms Prostitute was the most extreme The definition of to prostitute ones self is not limited to selling sex The reported used it as Gaga is selling access to herself through the competition so don t think of it as a throwaway insult charlatan is some what tamer Cheating and scamming were the more tame side Wikipedia does not allow censorship and it is entirely encylopedic to demonstrate how severe some of the critisms has been I m not entirely happy with that line As I said I m aiming to show the breadth of the criticism So feel free to try and rework it But yes the controversy needs to be in the article as it directly and fundamentally impacts how people interpret other aspects of the article