There is no shame in being passionate about a particular philosopher and being influenced by their ideas to the point of working in their wake.
It all depends on whether you are fixated on an identity or to something else in the philosophers you are devoted to. Badiou tells us that our fidelities constitute us as subjects, but fidelity is not to an ego nor to a more or less expert knowledge (finite constituted identities), but to working out the consequences of “truths” (infinite de-constituted generic potencies). Badiou does not consider philosophy to be a truth procedure, but the lesson is the same.
The epithet “Deleuzian” is the name of a finite static property covering over an infinite generic process, but so is “Laruellean”, “Lacanian” or “Badiousian”. These names imply the image of thought as knowledge, and of the subject as subjugated identity. Or such an epithet can name a fidelity to the Truths as open non-totalised multiplicitous infinite processes inscribed in and passing through a work, and the subject as participant process of individuation. You identify with one, you incorporate in the other.
Too often we conflate “philosopher” with “philosophy teacher” (school teacher, lecturer, professor). Philosophy teacher is the name of a particular job in the capitalist economy. It is a finite identity that very often covers over the infinite processes involved and deployed in philosophy. “Analyst” too, even “Lacanian analyst”, names a job, office hours, fees and taxes, institutional training, etc.
Laruelle would tell us that there is too much arrogant “sufficiency”, too much complacent completeness, in these identities.