[Kim] Word "man" on card? NO
[Inkspot] Mineral man made? YES

It's rather late to fess up to this, but I think there is probably a VEGETABLE element to this too (having said which, its absence hasn't really proven critical in the questioning as yet, nor probably will it).

[Ig] Warfare? NO *some laughter*

[Raak] Parts of persons? YES. One 'animal' is part of a person; the other 'animal' is partially a person.

[rab] Ghosties and ghoulies? NO

[Raak] Supernatural? NO

Handy summary: It's an ANIMAL, VEGETABLE, MINERAL, (ABSTRACT (ANIMAL)). On the card is a name - the name of something essentially fictional that is and isn't a person. One of the animal parts is part of a human, the other animal part is partially a person, and partially another specific animal. The mineral part is man-made. It isn't supernatural or mythical.

[rab] Mammal? YES

[Ig] Appeared first in a specific work... YES is the best answer, altho one might quibble with it slightly.

[Ig] Fiction European? YES

[rab] Eng. Lang.? OUI
[Ink] Comic? NO

[rab] Book? NO

[Ig] Shakespeare play? NO (not a play at all, in fact)
[Ink] Film? NO

[rab] Originating work of fiction a written form? NO

rater/rather

[Ink] Mineral part of the viewing medium? NO
[Raak] Painting? NO

[rab] Original work concrete? Almost not sure how to answer. Would, say, a CD or a score of a piece of music count as concrete and tangible for the purposes of the question (originating form is not a piece of music, btw)? If you'd say yes, then YES, if you'd say no, you meant something like a painting or a sculpture where the idea and its expression in concrete form are pretty much analogous, then NO. :) (© Overthinking Services Ltd)