Clearly, DZ, you're as well read on Biblical scholarship as I am. While I respect your learning, I must point out that the historicity of Esther is interesting, but tangential to this discussion. The article specifies texts "referenced by, but not found in, the Bible." Whether anyone finds Esther ahistorical doesn't impact the fact that Esther is part of the Bible, and therefore, books described therein qualify for this article.

To pick over the list with esoteric debates about whether any or all of the bible is ahistorical is probably a worthwhile article, but the discussion doesn't go HERE. This article has a simple definition: If the reference is in the Tanakh, the reference belongs on the list. 

Secondly, I strongly disagree with using the preposition "in." Using "in" WOULD imply canonicity; using "of" implies only that they're described by the Bible. 

Lest this discussion turn nasty, and since you and I are apparently the only people obsessed by the topic , perhaps we could reach a scholarly consensus of our own: If you want to go to the dedicated pages for the Esther-referenced texts and carefully note the historicity debate there, I won't get into a revert war. By the same token, I would appreciate your making a concession on the prepositions used in the title of this article, and allowing me to redirect the fragmentary NCBRITB here without further ado. Thanks for engaging in a civilized discussion! It's a rare experience on WP, and I appreciate your tact.