Just to confirm that we also add the LCCN after “in favour of”.


Richard Moore
Authority Control Team Manager
The British Library

Tel.: +44 (0)1937 546104
E-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

From: Program for Cooperative Cataloging [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cuneo, Mary Jane
Sent: 02 May 2018 15:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PCCLIST] 667 for authority records reported for deletion

Hello PCCList,

A while ago there was a discussion on this list about the use of a 667 to identify an authority record that has been reported to LC for deletion.  Most agreed that the note would be useful to alert catalogers to the status of the record and redirect them to the correct one.  Robert Bremer allowed that the note would be acceptable from a systems perspective.  Afterwards, I had an email conversation with Richard Moore and Paul Frank about whether the 667 should have a standard wording.  I have intended for some time to share our conclusions, and now finally I’m getting around to it!  We thought that the note didn’t need to be standardized, but if it reliably included a couple of words (like “reported” and “deletion”) it would be easy to find all of the records so marked, if needed.

So, by way of illustration, but not prescriptive, we use:

British Library:
667  Duplicate record; reported for deletion in favour of

Harvard Library
667  Duplicate record, reported for deletion in favor of [LCCN] ([date])

Mary Jane Cuneo
Serials cataloging and NACO
Information and Technical Services
Harvard Library

Experience the British Library online at<>
The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts :<>
Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book.<>
The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
Think before you print