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