Communication is talking to someone about something.
Meta-communication is talking to someone about the communication itself.
Noise is here a concept from communication theory as well, as in the pair "signal to noise", adapted from the engineering concept.
Signal is the meaningful information you want to get, noise is the rest of the communication that supposedly does not add any value to the topic at hand.
That leads us into the conundrum that meta-noise is quite often an oxymoron, talking about talking for clarification or establishing standards of understanding are not noise by definition, but in fact the opposite. Meta-communication is there to improve the signal as transmitted and received. Something vital in case of different languages, cultures etc.
This does not mean that meta-communication may be perceived as superfluous in certain situations that should be otherwise very clear cut. But in most cases I ever saw it is just a derogatory term.
While this answer is no statement about the quality of any post in particular or the "SE-model" as mentioned in a comment below the question. However, on SE sites it might indeed be better to not use meta-communication in a question or in an answer, as far as my humble understanding of that models goes. These meta-requests should really be made into comments or on the respective meta-sites. Conveniently, this paragraph with additional explanations might also serve as an example for perceived "meta-noise".
The suggested translation "irrelavante Daten" is not entirely bad, although Daten is quite abstract for meaning coherent words of a natural language.
One translation for this attempted refusal to communicate would be quite straightforward:
Rauschen is a better fit since it uses existing concepts and translations thereof. It even is more naturally related to human language, especially when voiced.