I don't think the bible is fiction, it is more a loosely organized historical account.

This is a case of a poor understanding of what fiction and non-fiction are. In literature, fiction and non-fiction are not defined by the factual veracity of the content, but rather by the intent of the author.

Works of fiction are works where the purpose is to entertain, and where the author does not assert that the subject matter is factual. Works of fiction can contain facts, and can even predominately consist of fact. They can also have valuable insights and leave the reader enlightened in some ways.

Non-fiction works can be entertaining, but in most cases are rooted in what the author considers to be fact. Religious and philosophical texts are classified as non-fiction for that reason. An author can be incorrect, and some or even most of the facts in a book can be wrong, but that doesn't change it's standing.

Now, whether or not it is factual is certainly a relevant topic to debate, but there is zero case for classifying any religious texts as fiction; doing so is at best a misunderstanding of how works are classified, and at worst an intentional troll against members of said religion.

It should be listed at Non-fiction because it's actual events that happened in our history. And I saw this article a couple of days ago.