How do proponents of Sola Scriptura address the ministry of those Apostles who authored no parts of Scripture? My purpose is to find a defense of sola scriptura against one part of the argument put forth in this article:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/going-beyond

The author of the article uses as one of his pieces of evidence in his argument against sola scriptura the ministry of those Apostles that never wrote a gospel or letter that made it into the Bible. If they were apostles and had apostolic authority to teach doctrine, what are we to do with doctrines that they taught that were communicated via tradition and never incorporated into the Bible?

Or, concerning John, what about teachings that he considered important that he intended to share verbally and never were written down in any of his letters?

Here is the relevant quote from the article:


  And then there’s that small matter of the unity of doctrine among the
  apostles. If Paul had been promulgating sola scriptura in 1
  Corinthians 4 he would have been in conflict with the practice of the
  rest of the apostles. Most of the apostles never wrote a single line
  of Scripture; instead they transmitted the deposit of faith orally.
  Did their oral teachings carry any less weight of authority than the
  written teachings of Paul or Peter or John?
  
  None of the other apostles taught sola scriptura. In fact, John said,
  “I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and
  ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face” (3
  John 13). Why would the apostle emphasize his preference for oral
  Tradition over written Tradition (a preference he reiterates in 2 John
  12) if, as proponents of sola scriptura assert, Scripture is superior
  to oral Tradition?


My preference is for a Calvinist argument, but any protestant argument will suffice. 

Note: In my research, I have found this article helpful, and it touches on these matters, but the argument could be stronger:
https://www.equip.org/article/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura/
The problem is no one knows exactly what John ever said apart from his writings.  It's the same with Paul.  What Traditions were extant in their time?  Do we really believe they taught, for example, the Immaculate Conception?  How would we know?  It's an argument from silence and it's an argument that led to division not just between Protestant and Catholic, but centuries before between Catholic and Orthodox.

To your question, no one who believes in sola scriptura (the bible is the sole source of authority for all that's necessary for doctrine or practice as regards salvation) believes that the apostles left something salvific out of their writings that were assembled and are called the New Testament.  It is a rejection of so-called Tradition that again frankly we have no way of identifying.  We have no idea what John said to Gaius (3 John).

Irenaeus, as far as I know, was the first to address the question.  How did the apostles work who didn't write anything down?  He answers they all spoke the same message, but only some were chosen to write it down.


  
  We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
  AH, Book III, I, 1
  


So, for the early church, there's not a sense of something missing from the salvation message from apostolic writing that some group might discover centuries later from who knows where.

To be sure, Irenaeus believes that trustworthy men will proclaim the same message, but that is the extent of oral Tradition.  It's not something out there apart from the bible truth, but is a person speaking the bible truth.