" 

  

 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.  

   "