When can a noun be used attributively? When is this usage preferred over the corresponding adjective?

Well, we do say hate crimes and oil spill and Mafia gangster. Those are three parallel combinations to ones you say don't work.

Merriam-Webster Online has this to say:

While any noun may occasionally be used attributively, the label ... attributive is limited to those having broad attributive use. This label is not used when an adjective homograph (as iron or paper) is entered. And it is not used at open compounds (as health food) that may be used attributively with an inserted hyphen (as in health-food store).

This is given in the context of how the dictionary itself determines which nouns are labeled "attributive" by their editors.

Examples they cite are business ethics and bottle opener.

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language by H&P (Page 444) defines "attributive modifiers" as follows:

Internal modifiers in pre-head position are realised by DPs, AdjPs, VPs with past participle or gerund-participle heads, and nominals in plain or genitive case:

Among which let's focus on AdjPs and nominals:

ii a. his wry attitude b. many very angry farmers [AdjP]

v a. its entertainment value b. those Egyptian cotton shirts [nominal]

Although internal modifiers in pre-head position are called "attributive modifiers", I think only an adjective (AdjP to be exact) expresses an attribute of a modified noun, and that a noun (a nominal to be exact) used as an "attributive modifier" expresses not an attribute but a kind of a modified noun.

While wry and very angry express respective attributes of attitude and farmers, entertainment and Egyptian cotton express not respective attributes but respective kinds of value and shirts. And the same can be said about cat food, coffee cup, gold ring, laser surgery, flood insurance, sociology papers, hate crimes, Chicago gangster, business ethics, bottle opener, etc.

Of course, there are exceptions as always to this distinction. ??America gangsters, for example, is an exception where the adjective American, not the noun America, is used to express the nationality. Note, however, that you can say U.S. gangsters, where U.S. is a nominal.

??Measurement spoons is another exception where V-ing (measuring), not a noun, is used to describe the kind of spoons in terms of their use (e.g., a sleeping bag). Greed crimes could work, but it's just that no such crimes are defined in criminal law. (Criminal law is another example of an exception where the adjective criminal expresses the kind of law.)

A keyboard spill may not be necessary, because what other kinds of spill can be compared with it? A water spill, I think, is theoretically possible compared with an oil spill, but again it might not be terribly necessary to use the term considering that no harm is done by a water spill.