Therefore, i think ＃３６８０ does not belong to this category since it doesn't imply the meaning 「〜no need to ...」
This is often used with words such as 驚く, 嘆く, 褒める, etc.
I disagree with bamboo4 and 誠. I think that the given definition itself is too restrictive and wrong. The literal meaning of #4233 could be more accurately described as "sympathy (for that person) DOES NOT MATCH the reality (of what that person has done) = sympathy is not warranted in this case." I think that #3680 should stay, because it shows the diversity and the true basic spirit of this expression. That is, all examples here have the meaning of something "not matching," "being off the mark" or "not appropriate." I think we should change the definition since it is misleading.
当たる in #3680 does not mean "match" but it really means phyisical striking like an arrow hitting the target. The other examples of あたる does not have that physical meaning. While I agree that the definition is not appropriate, I still think #3680 stands alone here.
Can also be used without the する. When used with just the noun (非難、同情、称賛、etc.) this phrase could be translated as "doesn't merit (criticism, sympathy, admiration, etc.)"
Isn't the construction of #4045 and #4233 this: 「動詞」にあたらない but #3680 actually: ｢副詞」あたらない （副詞＝めったに）
Although example 3680 is correct in structure, its context is somewhat incorrect. --Ni Ataranai = isn't worthy of -- Ataranai = opposite of ataru (to be right on)
自業自得 = As you sow, so shall you reap.
#3680 あたらない in this case if different from other examples because あたる mere means "hit the target" like bullet. Accordingly, "A weather forecasts are rarely near the mark" would be more appropriate.
I agree with godfrey, the meaning 'no need to do sth' is not always correct, yet you can always interpret the sentence correctly with ataru having the meaning of 'hitting the target'. Then example #4045 could be interpreted as 'Having sympathy doesn't hit the target > isn't right' or something like that.
I don't think example #3680 stands alone, the construction is just used in a more literal way than in the other examples.