We’ve never had to deal with the “last man standing” on an undifferentiated authority record, so I’m not sure how to treat this situation and confusing myself with the documentation.
The authority records involved in this are:
nr2002026655 Cook, Paul (Paul Harlin), 1950-
n 88633898 Cook, Paul
n 96080576 Cook, Paul, 1950-
We cataloged an item by one of our faculty members (Paul Harlin Cook) and discovered one of his works (The lost word) had been attached to an existing undifferentiated NAR, n 88633898. We moved the title to the correct authority record, nr2002026655, and adjusted the original to reflect a single person. However, something I read/heard made me think we should have transferred all the data on the formerly undifferentiated record into a new AR and asked LC to delete the old one. We tried to find information about the “Paul Cook” on n 88633898, but were unsuccessful, so if we did create a new NAR for him, it would look exactly like the old one, just with a new record number. Is this really necessary? (If we’d found additional information about the original Paul Cook, I almost understand the need to create a new NAR, but not when we have nothing to add.)
We also didn’t put the “formerly on undifferentiated ...” note on nr2002026655, because we didn’t create a new NAR, simply transferred data. Should we have added the note? If so, how do we indicate the only part of the authority record which was on the undifferentiated NAR is one of the 670s? (One of the other 670 titles on this authority record was ALSO moved from n 88633898 several years ago, with no note, so we didn’t add it this time, either.)
In addition, we found an authority record for another Paul Cook born in 1950. We did contact our Paul Cook and determined he is NOT the author of “I fitzgranger,” the 670 on n 96080576; should we add a 667 “Do not confuse with ...”?
I hope this is clear!
Thanks for any guidance you can provide,