Can you please give me a good argument supporting the idea that Esperanto is NOT a (real) language?

Update: WOW!
Let's see. Navajo is not spoken by a lot of people either. Does that stop it from being a language (or... a REAL language?)

I think the words "good" and "argument" have lost some of their original meaning...
Update 2: Rabidus... you first give me one link. Okay. That one deals with vocabulary and grammar origins (not being universal), diacritic letters (many languages have diacritics), lack of culture / culturaly European, too large vocabulary, that it is sexist, that it is (or looks or sounds) artificial. But I don't read... show more Rabidus... you first give me one link. Okay. That one deals with vocabulary and grammar origins (not being universal), diacritic letters (many languages have diacritics), lack of culture / culturaly European, too large vocabulary, that it is sexist, that it is (or looks or sounds) artificial. But I don't read anything about it not being a language.
Then you edit and give me a link in support of Esperanto. Then you delete it and give me another.. supporting Esperanto!!
I am asking for arguments about it NOT BEING A (REAL) LANGUAGE.
Update 3: lol Rabidus. While I was adding details you decided to delete the last one. and leave the one that doesn't address the issue. Okay.

Who cares about the goals of the language. I am only looking for reasons of it not being a language!
8 answers 8