Yes it's "likely" to be transcendental, maybe there are some evidences that support this, but this is not a proof (keep in mind that it isn't even proven to be irrational yet). Similarly, most mathematicians/computer scientist bet that P ≠ NP, but it doesn't make it proven and no one should claim that P ≠ NP in some article just because "it's most likely to be true" (even though some empirical real life evidence supports this hypothesis). In mathematics, some things may turn out to be contrary to our intuition and experience.

So it’s like “15 oldest actors to win an Oscar” and including someone who’s nominated this year but hasn’t actually won. But he might, right?

No, my dudes. Just no. If it’s not proven transcendental, it’s not to be considered such.