The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 in and of itself does not refute sola scriptura. The only scripture the apostles had was the Hebrew Bible, so they could not appeal to scripture alone. However, any "church of Christ" member could point out that the canon was not yet complete, that the Jerusalem Council wound up in "new testament scripture" anyway, so that after the completion of the canon (as opposed to before its completion) sola scriptura could still be valid.
This is another example of a correct conclusion being arrived at by faulty logic. Things like this are why most Protestants won't even consider the possibility that sola scriptura just might not be correct . . . unfortunately.
Canon or not, the problem of sola scriptura stands, transcending the scripture itself. From the articles:
All appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretations of Scripture.The only real question is: whose interpretation? People with differing interpretations of Scripture cannot set a Bible on a table and ask it to resolve their differences. In order for the Scripture to function as an authority, it must be read and interpreted by someone. According to “solo” Scriptura, that someone is each individual, so ultimately, there are as many final authorities as there are human interpreters.