Why a pure virtual destructor needs an implementation

Question

I know the cases where pure virtual destructors are needed. I also know that If we don't provide an implementation for them it will give me a linker error. What I don't understand is why this should be the case in a code fragment as shown below:

int main()
{
    Base * p = new Derived;
}

Here there is no delete, so no call to destructor and so no need for its implementation(assuming it is supposed to behave like other normal functions which are declared but not defined, linker complains only when we call them)...or am I missing something?

I need to understand why this should be a special case?

Edit: based on comments from BoBTFish

Here are my Base and Derived classes

class Base
{
public:
    Base(){}
    virtual ~Base() = 0;
};

class Derived : public Base
{
};

Answer 1

The compiler tries to build the virtual table given a virtual (pure or not) destructor, and it complains because it can't find the implementation.

virtual destructors differ from other virtual functions because they are called when the object is destroyed, regardless of whether it was implemented or not. This requires the compiler to add it to the vf table, even if it's not called explicitly, because the derived class destructor needs it.

Pedantically, the standard requires a pure virtual destructor to be implemented.