GG5, JWN, daijr, daijs, meikyo, 広辞苑第六版, 新明解国語辞典第五版

Response to the previous entry and argument against the inclusion of "to need" as a definition.
The〈人が主語〉/〈物が主語〉classification is most likely there for the benefit of those learning English, not Japanese.
Furthermore, the usage of 主語 is inconsistent with itself, in the former it seems to refer to the semantic agent while in the latter to the syntactic subject. This could be expanded upon but I fear for the already not-so-short length of this commentary.
The above problem can only be circumvented by assigning to 要る ambitransitivity, which is another problem considering the desired element is always in the nominative.

Then, of the references listed, 5, 6 and 7 - which are the only ones that list transitivity - have it as intransitive and all 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 recognise that it originates from 入る(いる)、which is an intransitive verb. 
While I understand that its transitivity is not being called into question here, it is precisely because of it that it should be translated exclusively as "to be needed" and not "to need", this would keep the grammatical subject consistent across both languages and is thus truer to what 要る entails.

In regards to the translations in GG5 given as "to need", they are there because it is the semantically equivalent, natural sounding translation as opposed to the syntactically and semantically equivalent but unnatural result of always translating it as "to be needed".
It would be understandable to render it as "to need" had we no manner of generating a syntactically equivalent construction. We would then settle for "to need" as the semantic correspondence. But that is not the case here, we do have one that can express both accurate semantics and syntax simultaneously, so why choose to include that which does only one? I personally cannot see its inclusion to be of any additional help to the learner; if anything, the aforementioned syntactic discrepancy and conflicting definitions(assuming coexistence with "to be needed") could result in, though likely short-lived nonetheless unwarranted, confusion.

GG5: 〔必要である〕 〈人が主語〉 want; need; must have; be [stand] in 「need [want] of…; require; 〈物が主語〉 be necessary; be needed; be needful; be required; be essential.
Tanaka (one of 62): これくらいの大きさの箱がいる。 I need a box of this size.

I think GG5's 〈人が主語〉/〈物が主語〉 classification is interesting. 
We have 62 example sentences for this term and many of the 物が主語 variety just use "need". Perhaps we can have both forms of glosses?

daijr, daijs, JWN

Besides the item of necessity taking the nominative marker, this verb is consistently described by the listed sources in a manner that clarifies its intransitive disposition（ e.g., 必要である）thus the translation of "to be needed" is more suitable.
Further supporting this is the existence of structures such as 「私に要らない」which should refute the claim that the が particle is being used in an instance of the infamous nominative object, unless you would also like to introduce the concept of a dative subject.
Even if you would like to argue that, I posit that it is simpler to the learner to regard 要る as an intransitive, stative verb as that does not demand them to shift the particles from their usual function.

@@ -20,2 +20,2 @@
-<gloss>to need</gloss>
-<gloss>to want</gloss>
+<gloss>to be needed</gloss>
+<gloss>to be wanted</gloss>

Definitely intransitive in Japanese. It's like 分かる. Those "人が主語" glosses are for the benefit of English learners.

intransitive glosses here look weird to me. gg5 has separate glosses for
〈人が主語〉 want; need; must have; be [stand] in ┏need [want] of…; require; 
and
〈物が主語〉be necessary; be needed; be needful; be required; be essential.

should this be two senses? could "to need" be considered" vt here, even if it doesn't take を? It seems to me that it does actually take 
objects, only with が instead of を

@@ -20,2 +20,2 @@
-<gloss>to be needed</gloss>
-<gloss>to be wanted</gloss>
+<gloss>to need</gloss>
+<gloss>to want</gloss>

gg5

shouldn't an intransitive verb have intransitive glosses?
(even though gg5 has transitive glosses)

@@ -20,2 +20,2 @@
-<gloss>to need</gloss>
-<gloss>to want</gloss>
+<gloss>to be needed</gloss>
+<gloss>to be wanted</gloss>

This was a tough one as the いらない/いりません could have been from 入る/炒る/煎る/etc. GG5, etc. mostly use kana for the examples of this entry. I checked the Tanaka/Tatoeba sentences for 要る and いらない/いりません and they predominantly use kana for this verb.

n-grams
要らない	42210
いらない	121959
要りません	8539
いりません	9410

@@ -18,0 +19 @@
+<misc>&uk;</misc>

Luminous, prog, nc, 新和英中辞典

@@ -20,0 +20,1 @@
+<gloss>to want</gloss>