Sounds metal to me. But the band was called Blood of Thine at the time of demo, or something? If that's the case I'm for adding the demo version of the band again, but leaving out the Thine years (well, of course with a note in the add. notes).

The single has one original song and a cover.

Intense Mutilation got wacked. Comedy noisegrind/punk, 0 death metal.

Go home, Grimmy. You're drunk.

Both were released as Secretion from Westland

Drained should not be on Secretion from Detroit's page because it was released in 1994 and Ron only joined in 1997

Decay was originally released but then he joined and the demo was re-recorded with bass, then he left and started selling copies of this demo under a new Secretion band

Rotten Pus also seems to be his label, it released almost all records by his various bands.

http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Shihad/3540280913

This band is in the Archives based upon a single metal debut EP out of a 20+-year career playing industrial rock. Considering other bands (e.g. Suicide Silence) are barred from the website despite having metal EPs amongst predominantly non-metal discographies, and considering that this band would be unacceptable if the order of their releases was reversed (20 years of industrial rock followed by a thrash EP), I think this should call into play some sort of unspoken rule of majority wherein the band's identity has proven itself to not be that of a metal-focused band.

@Shihad: First off, I'd be okay with keeping them if those two releases are pretty much undeniably metal (haven't listened). It's not some freak single or short rehearsal, it's a demo and a 20+ minutes EP. Like TUA said, in some ways we list metal releases, not bands. And Shihad has metal releases and there is no reason to leave out the rest. [..] Some say it's a question of proportionality and this does seem sensible to some extent, but I'm not sure if I want to go down that road all the way.

[..]

The heart of the matter is really that time is linear and that the approval process is a one-time thing. We judge (most) bands at a specific point in time and after that the most common/ideal case is for the band never to (have to) be judged again, no matter what they do with their "post-approval" career. Similarly, we cannot review a band's potential unwritten discography/musical direction or otherwise attempt to scry their future shenanigans. Obviously. Take some crusty death metal band with only a short 7'' EP out. They might well change to full-on crust on a full-length and then split up. Who knows, but should we reject them because they seem too much of a risk? That seems silly. What we can reasonably be expected to do, however, time-symmetrically challenged entities that we are, is being careful and restrictive when presented with a band that already has a fair share of non-metal or grey-area output. Should we be lenient with them because of bands where it was the other way round?

Ideally, we'd have a list of bands that were, at the time of approval, either borderline in regards to their musical output or their release(s) containing metal or both. And then periodically go through that list and check if they've somehow become more dubious since. ... Yeah, didn't think so. Aye, it's sort of an inherent asymmetry in the way the site handles bands, but I don't really see how we can do much about it except for the cleansing thread and our own chance encounters when browsing the database. Unless someone actually wants to go through bands and check if they only had a rough metal demo and then eight electroswing albums? Or, much worse, played borderline acceptable deathcore on one EP and then maybe-borderline unacceptable deathcore on a full-length? [..]

[..] Anyway, I don't think it's much of a problem and in the end merely another small, effectively unavoidable inconsistency that separates the staff and site policy from a perfect, omniscient Borg collective database. Not too dissimilar from... well, from how we judge what's metal and what's not.