In the sense that the author and the subjects claim it are non-fiction - yes, quite enough.

For people to approach it non-skeptically, no - not at all.

It's like that rubbish about the child that had visions of heaven or whatever while in hospital, they even made a "based on the true story" movie of it, and it was listed as non-fiction.

Non-fiction doesn't actually mean "factual", technically...

Is the Bible sold as non-fiction? Seems like many of the same logical points apply.

It would be nice if you said what the grey area is. Quoting Snopes:

> The truth behind The Amityville Horror was finally revealed when Butch DeFeo's lawyer, William Weber, admitted that he, along with the Lutzes, "created this horror story over many bottles of wine." The house was never really haunted; the horrific experiences they had claimed were simply made up. Jay Anson further embellished the tale for his book, and by the time the film's screenwriters had adapted it, any grains of truth that might have been there were long gone.

Here we have a co-creator of the story specifically saying that it was not real. We don't have that for the Bible. It doesn't mater if many of the same logical points apply when one rather big logical point doesn't apply.

In any case, many works of fiction, like Aesop's Fables, are classified as non-fiction. My belief that "non-fiction" means it actually happened was wrong.