This is a blatant publicity stunt, but what the hell, it’s the kind of publicity stunt I can get behind. Jack Malvern, in The Times, reports:
Dictionary compilers at Collins have decided that the word list for the forthcoming edition of its largest volume is embrangled with words so obscure that they are linguistic recrement. Such words, they say, must be exuviated abstergently to make room for modern additions that will act as a roborant for the book.
Readers who vilipend the compilers’ decision and vaticinate that society will be poorer without little-used words have been offered a chance to save them from the endangered list. Collins, which is owned by News Corporation, parent company of The Times, has agreed that words will be granted a reprieve if evidence of their popularity emerges before February, when the word list is finalised.
Needless to say, the bolded words are among the candidates for deletion; the full list, with definitions, is at the bottom of the linked article. As I said on MetaFilter, where I found the link, “I’m really surprised apodeictic and mansuetude are on the list; I’ve seen both of them used often enough I would have thought they’d be uncontroversial inclusions.” But, as I also said, it’s all in the OED anyway, so who cares whether Collins includes it?