This is admittedly a historiographical rather than historical question. I have seen mods remove answers (not my answers) based on the fact that they mention oral sources, usually teachers, sometimes online lectures. My question would be how legitimate is this? I understand that in the field of history a contemporary written source is better than an oral account, but are we not just reproducing a bias in favor of written words here? If an oral source is corroborated by other sources, or if it leads a step closer to an academic answer, is it really productive to remove it when few or no other answers have been presented? I might be a bit biased as I took specializations in medieval and ancient history, but I would love to hear the answer. No hard feelings to the mods by the way, just interested in hearing how they think about this.
oral sources, usually teachers, sometimes online lectures.
When we talk about oral sources in historiography, it's in reference to primary sources. Historians working with personal histories collect them to answer specific research questions and are able to properly contextualize them. This is not possible when it's an anonymous redditor recounting their personal experience, or ones they've heard. We'd rather not referee which stories are acceptable and which aren't. For more on this, see this Rules Roundtable.
We do not allow you to cite things heard in a class because the purpose of citations is to allow cross-verification. Recorded lectures from professionals are acceptable.
if it leads a step closer to an academic answer
It's been our policy that answers should be complete and stand on their own. Given the way users browse Reddit, we're not interested in allowing partial answers to stand. We want any answer that a user reads to be solid.