Add r-fivethirtyeightdata

[IsabelParedes]

Checklist

• Title of this PR is meaningful: e.g. "Adding my_nifty_package", not "updated meta.yaml".
• License file is packaged (see here for an example).
• Source is from official source.
• Package does not vendor other packages. (If a package uses the source of another package, they should be separate packages or the licenses of all packages need to be packaged).
• If static libraries are linked in, the license of the static library is packaged.
• Package does not ship static libraries. If static libraries are needed, follow CFEP-18.
• Build number is 0.
• A tarball (url) rather than a repo (e.g. git_url) is used in your recipe (see here for more details).
• GitHub users listed in the maintainer section have posted a comment confirming they are willing to be listed there.
• When in trouble, please check our knowledge base documentation before pinging a team.

[github-actions]

Hi! This is the staged-recipes linter and your PR looks excellent! 🚀

[conda-forge-admin]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipes/r-fivethirtyeightdata/meta.yaml) and found some lint.

Here's what I've got...

For recipes/r-fivethirtyeightdata/meta.yaml:

• ❌ There are too few lines. There should be one empty line at the end of the file.

_{This message was generated by GitHub Actions workflow run https://github.com/conda-forge/conda-forge-webservices/actions/runs/13768932826. Examine the logs at this URL for more detail.}

[conda-forge-admin]

Hi! This is the friendly automated conda-forge-linting service.

I just wanted to let you know that I linted all conda-recipes in your PR (recipes/r-fivethirtyeightdata/meta.yaml) and found it was in an excellent condition.

[IsabelParedes]

@conda-forge/help-r, ready for review. Thanks!

[mfansler]

Thank you for submitting this!

Unfortunately, I do not support adding this to Conda Forge for the following reasons:

• the package is not (and cannot be) on CRAN, and as such it lacks regular upstream checks that it maintains consistency with R version releases;
• there has been no active development on this package since its creation (5 years ago), whereas the upstream data source continues to actively release data;
• the audience is unclear and I find no obvious data to indicate the level of demand;
• the license reporting in the R package seems incorrect, specifically the license on the data from the source is CC-BY-4.0 but this package only reports an MIT license, which technically violates CC-BY-4.0.

I would also note that this is a non-compiled package that only delivers data, so using install.packages as the r-fivethirtyeight package suggests should work just fine. If a Conda package is entirely necessary, individuals can host Conda packages on personal Anaconda Cloud accounts for free.

All that said, I'm not strongly opposed to this, so if another reviewer from @conda-forge/r wants to let it through, I won't object. However, the license issue should be addressed and the recipe should be changed to noarch.