diff --git a/crates/ruff/src/rules/pylint/rules/duplicate_value.rs b/crates/ruff/src/rules/pylint/rules/duplicate_value.rs
deleted file mode 100644
index 194e0bc55d..0000000000
--- a/crates/ruff/src/rules/pylint/rules/duplicate_value.rs
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,57 +0,0 @@
-use ruff_python_ast::{self as ast, Expr, Ranged};
-use rustc_hash::FxHashSet;
-
-use ruff_diagnostics::{Diagnostic, Violation};
-use ruff_macros::{derive_message_formats, violation};
-use ruff_python_ast::comparable::ComparableExpr;
-
-use crate::checkers::ast::Checker;
-
-/// ## What it does
-/// Checks for set literals that contain duplicate values.
-///
-/// ## Why is this bad?
-/// In Python, sets are unordered collections of unique elements. Including a
-/// duplicate value in a set literal is redundant, and may be indicative of a
-/// mistake.
-///
-/// ## Example
-/// ```python
-/// {1, 2, 3, 1}
-/// ```
-///
-/// Use instead:
-/// ```python
-/// {1, 2, 3}
-/// ```
-#[violation]
-pub struct DuplicateValue {
-    value: String,
-}
-
-impl Violation for DuplicateValue {
-    #[derive_message_formats]
-    fn message(&self) -> String {
-        let DuplicateValue { value } = self;
-        format!("Duplicate value `{value}` in set")
-    }
-}
-
-/// PLW0130
-pub(crate) fn duplicate_value(checker: &mut Checker, elts: &Vec<Expr>) {
-    let mut seen_values: FxHashSet<ComparableExpr> = FxHashSet::default();
-    for elt in elts {
-        if let Expr::Constant(ast::ExprConstant { value, .. }) = elt {
-            let comparable_value: ComparableExpr = elt.into();
-
-            if !seen_values.insert(comparable_value) {
-                checker.diagnostics.push(Diagnostic::new(
-                    DuplicateValue {
-                        value: checker.generator().constant(value),
-                    },
-                    elt.range(),
-                ));
-            }
-        };
-    }
-}