I haven't seen this either though I do report quite a few records for deletion (funneling for Art NACO as well as those from NYU). Having recently been in on an e-conversation with some serialists, it didn't surprise me to see that CU-S was probably the agent that added the 667. CONSER guidelines call for a 936 when you've reported a record to OCLC for conflation/deletion.
If adding the 667 message hasn't been discussed for situations like this, it might very well be a good thing. I have some times had two different Art NACO libraries run across the same duplicate situation at about the same time. If the record to be deleted could be marked, it would inform the second library. Sometimes one of the libraries finding the duplication has updated the record to be kept with info from the record to be deleted.
Sherman Clarke, NYU Libraries - [log in to unmask]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam L. Schiff" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 6:21 pm
Subject: [PCCLIST] 667 note on records reported for deletion
To: [log in to unmask]
> I found a 667 MESSAGE note in a name authority record that I've never
> In record n 2002012624:
> 667 MESSAGE. Record reported for deletion. See no 97060315
> I haven't seen anything telling us to put this kind of MESSAGE note
> records that we are reporting for deletion. I checked the DCM Z1 667
> pages that talk about MESSAGE notes, and they don't provide
> on this either. Is this a new practice that we should be following
> alert others that an NAR is being cancelled?
> Adam L. Schiff
> Principal Cataloger
> University of Washington Libraries
> Box 352900
> Seattle, WA 98195-2900
> (206) 543-8409
> (206) 685-8782 fax
> [log in to unmask]