You're really arguing not about whether topics should be included in the encyclopedia, but how their articles should be organized. Your argument is placated by reorganizing The Wire into one big article with all the detail from every episode. But the article was broken up not because of some separate notability for each episode (though some of them clearly are, ahem, notably notable), but because it makes WP's coverage of The Wire easier to read.

I don't think his argument is "placated" by that at all -- the point remains that lots of minutiae are apparently deemed worthy of inclusion, while arguably significant real-world people or organizations (which in many cases meet the letter of the law for notability) are not. The "notability" standard is applied very inconsistently, and in a way that seems to boil down to "whatever the Wikipedia brass find interesting." If that's the standard, fine, but be honest about it.

Again, a canard. Notability is far less subjective than it's made out to be. What episode of The Wire hasn't been written about in a reliable source somewhere? Zero, is how many.

Further, WP accomodates a myriad of non-notable facts. They're simply attached to notable subjects. The idea that every single sentence in WP must be notable is a straw-man argument. Once you accept that The Wire is notable enough for inclusion in WP, by nature of being the single best piece of long-form televisual drama ever created, then the question of how its articles are organized stops being about notability and starts being about information design.

And, I mean, have at it and all. But don't make it something that it isn't.

That may be, but you have to admit that there are thousands of fictional characters with larger impact on our world than the majority of real persons...