That's mostly a matter of definition. Literally, $$
f(x) = \frac{x+4}{(x+4)(x-6)}
$$
is not defined for $x=-4$, because in general $\frac{0}{0}$ is undefined. You can, however, easily extend $f$ from $\mathbb{R}\setminus\{-4,6\}$ to $\mathbb{R}\setminus\{6\}$ while keeping properties like continuity and the like intact.
That extension is, in fact, so simple in the case of your $f$ that most people will automatically do it in their head, i.e. will cancel the troublesome $x+4$ terms, and thus actually work with $$
f(x) = \frac{1}{x-6}
$$
which of course is defined for $x=-4$.
Still, literally speaking, Wolfram Alpha is correct to say that your $f$ is undefined for both $x=-4$ and $x=6$. Even though that undefined-ness is pretty artificial.
Here's an analogy which might help explain the two different viewpoints that lead to two different answers here. Say you're standing on a street with a friend, and are looking at a car. He says "That care looks exactly like mine". You answer "No, it doesn't. The license plates have different numbers on them". Who's correct? Literally speaking, you are - two cars with different license plates obviously don't look exactly the same. But the difference is trivial, and since the license plates will obviously be different since it's not actually his car, it's clear that he was referring to everything else being equal.