  We test 16 bibliometric indicators with respect to their validity at the
level of the individual researcher by estimating their power to predict later
successful researchers. We compare the indicators of a sample of astrophysics
researchers who later co-authored highly cited papers before their first
landmark paper with the distributions of these indicators over a random control
group of young authors in astronomy and astrophysics. We find that field and
citation-window normalisation substantially improves the predicting power of
citation indicators. The two indicators of total influence based on citation
numbers normalised with expected citation numbers are the only indicators which
show differences between later stars and random authors significant on a 1%
level. Indicators of paper output are not very useful to predict later stars.
The famous $h$-index makes no difference at all between later stars and the
random control group.
